Report: Young adults more likely to live with parents than spouses(apartmentlist.com)
apartmentlist.com
Report: Young adults more likely to live with parents than spouses
https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/reconfiguring-the-american-household/
286 comments
If you average things out over a longer period, we are still significantly better off than we were say 100 or 150 years ago. Really I think a lot of the "things aren't getting better" mindset is just a reaction to the fact that the beginning of our current societal "working memory" is the post-WWII economic boom. When your benchmark for prosperity is literally the best growth period on record, you're bound to be disappointed.
I'm very pleased to have antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and climate control, but that isn't relevant. Being priced out of the housing market, or having difficulty finding an affordable rental are life-diminishing prospects. It's taking place, it's what is up for discussion in this thread, and it isn't millennial whining to want to be able to comfortably afford your living situation.
Housing where I live (Iowa) is perfectly reasonable, especially when compared to coastal metros. I agree that what is going on in those places isn't sustainable. I think people miss out on the fact that the housing crisis isn't universal though (which is not to say that it isn't very important in the places that it is a big deal).
Housing is perfectly reasonably priced in all sorts of places. Because demand is lower. Because jobs are fewer and the salaries for those jobs are lower. This isn't a coastal elites vs. working-class midwesterners issue, either.
If you work remotely it might be
Please show an example of a 150 year gap where the average person wasn't significantly better off in written history. Otherwise your statement is tautological and thus worthless.
Also your growth contrast is so lacking in details I can't find a counterpoint as you didn't really make a point. Especially when what you are replying to is about inequality and you are talking about economic growth.
Also your growth contrast is so lacking in details I can't find a counterpoint as you didn't really make a point. Especially when what you are replying to is about inequality and you are talking about economic growth.
> Please show an example of a 150 year gap where the average person wasn't significantly better off in written history.
AD 1200 - AD 1350
I think the average person was significantly better off in 1200 than in 1350
AD 1200 - AD 1350
I think the average person was significantly better off in 1200 than in 1350
> Please show an example of a 150 year gap where the average person wasn't significantly better off.
I take this to mean where person living in year X was not better off than person living in year (X - 150). In that case, literally any time in human history before the industrial revolution. 150 years is an insignificant blip on the timeline of history.
As to your other comment, inequality and economic growth are intrinsically linked. The inequality people are complaining about is an unequal share in the economic growth of the society.
I take this to mean where person living in year X was not better off than person living in year (X - 150). In that case, literally any time in human history before the industrial revolution. 150 years is an insignificant blip on the timeline of history.
As to your other comment, inequality and economic growth are intrinsically linked. The inequality people are complaining about is an unequal share in the economic growth of the society.
I mean...the entire period before the industrial revolution and the advent of modern medicine?
Some guy living in 1000BC China is probably going to be as well off as someone in 1000AD China, which is to say they both aren't well off at all. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.
Some guy living in 1000BC China is probably going to be as well off as someone in 1000AD China, which is to say they both aren't well off at all. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.
But for purposes of this debate we are looking back over a 20-40 year period for wage stagnation and increasing housing, educational and health care costs. That is the relevant comparison, not 100 years ago.
And my point is that the period that we are looking back on was unsustainably good regarding a lot of factors.
This is really the crux of the issue. Wage stagnation and rent-seekers have priced-out most of the market, and it appears to only be getting worse. At some point a few people or corporations might own the majority of the housing, and be able to charge whatever rate they want to their renters and watch as their land values increase by 10% a year. Its really insane, and I don't see how it will end.
>I don't see how it will end.
Well, historically speaking, societies always tend to collapse when they can't figure out how to sustain themselves. So I think it's a safe assumption that our society will also collapse eventually.
Well, historically speaking, societies always tend to collapse when they can't figure out how to sustain themselves. So I think it's a safe assumption that our society will also collapse eventually.
While it seems to be a red rag to a bull for large swathes of the electorate in many countries, this is one of the things having a reasonable system of inheritance tax could presumably help reduce. The extent to which people can creatively hide/structure wealth to pass on to their children, creating a "landed gentry" class of sorts, seems to get worse with time. I certainly have observed anecdotally a large gap between those who inherited and were able to invest in property, and those who didn't and could not.
It was interesting to observe the Conservative party in the UK revisit this issue (again) at their party conference, it's amazing how much it riles large sections of the UK electorate when only less than 5 percent of families in the UK ever actually meet the threshold where it has to be paid...
It was interesting to observe the Conservative party in the UK revisit this issue (again) at their party conference, it's amazing how much it riles large sections of the UK electorate when only less than 5 percent of families in the UK ever actually meet the threshold where it has to be paid...
>I don't see how it will end
Spoilers: it's going to be extremely ugly
Spoilers: it's going to be extremely ugly
Comparing an index (inflation) with individual parts of the index in order to claim that people are worse off is dumb.
If you want to know if people are better off, look at real income. It's very clearly increasing over the last few decades.
If you want to know if people are better off, look at real income. It's very clearly increasing over the last few decades.
It’s a fucking crime how older generations are pulling up the ladder behind them.
It works since these egotistical morons are democratically in a majority.
Gonna be interesting to see how this shit develops when it hits the fan.
If a democratic minority is demanding power based on land, how are we not gonna be in a feudal society?
It works since these egotistical morons are democratically in a majority.
Gonna be interesting to see how this shit develops when it hits the fan.
If a democratic minority is demanding power based on land, how are we not gonna be in a feudal society?
I was at a party where the topic of discussion was that: You should only be able to vote if you own land. It was a pool party, of all things, and I contemplated slowly submerging into the water and just staying there until I drowned.
This is the exact rules for voting when women and slaves were disenfranchised.
At its core, America has not changed one bit since.
At its core, America has not changed one bit since.
As an anarchist, I do wonder when peoples worship for democracy will come to an end. It's things like this that I hope will finally do it. Who cares if a majority wants something, the question is, what is right and just.
The problem is that the alternative isn't sustainable. Sure, we can solve the problem for one generation by building enough small apartments to accommodate the current demand. Except once the demand picks up due to the population growth and immigration, the problem will return. So what do we do next? Communal apartments with one room per family? Some sort of dormitories with "hotbedding" for everyone?
Given the massive inequality in the population density and cost of living, looking into remote work or starting your own business in a lower CoL area could be a much better alternative to demanding someone else to drastically lower their living standard.
Given the massive inequality in the population density and cost of living, looking into remote work or starting your own business in a lower CoL area could be a much better alternative to demanding someone else to drastically lower their living standard.
I guess that's to be expected when those parents are the ones going to all the planning commission and city council meetings to put a stop to the construction of housing.
The US builds more 3 car garages than 1 bedroom apartments: https://www.curbed.com/2016/10/26/13423358/three-car-garages...
The US builds more 3 car garages than 1 bedroom apartments: https://www.curbed.com/2016/10/26/13423358/three-car-garages...
Along similar lines of thinking it would be really nice if the young people would vote as consistently as the old people.
I'm in between generations and watching the old vs young bickering / division is painful to see... but I've also got a low tolerance for a lot of the "OMG boomers" stuff out there from folks who as a whole have a really poor voting record. Get in the game people....
I'm in between generations and watching the old vs young bickering / division is painful to see... but I've also got a low tolerance for a lot of the "OMG boomers" stuff out there from folks who as a whole have a really poor voting record. Get in the game people....
Even if they did vote, a lot of the politically active young renters oppose new development since they see it as gentrification or only enriching real estate developers or only building luxury housing.
Here they're all terrified that apartments will be occupied by Section 8 occupants. Oddly enough they are predominantly far left people here.
Why should they? If you increase the supply of housing, it puts downward pressure on rent. Am I missing something?
If you increase the supply of housing, it puts downward pressure on rent
That's the bug right there. Rental housing is a popular investment vehicle, at a ROI of 9.5 % it slightly outperforms the stock market. Any regulation and anything that would decrease profit will be stridently opposed by the wealthy classes. They go and vote and sit on the city council.
That's the bug right there. Rental housing is a popular investment vehicle, at a ROI of 9.5 % it slightly outperforms the stock market. Any regulation and anything that would decrease profit will be stridently opposed by the wealthy classes. They go and vote and sit on the city council.
I think part of it is due to lack of understanding, you see new buildings being built that are going to rent out at the high range, and you think nobody actually affected by lack of housing will benefit from it. People who think differently ought to do a better job explaining to the general public why building luxury housing can help the people not living in luxury housing
It’s also frustrating because new housing is always necessarily market rate, and when the market rate is ridiculous, new housing is ridiculous. I live in “luxury” apartments from 1970, and even though I live in an expensive city, my rent is decently reasonable for the area (plus, I would hardly describe my unit as luxurious, unless you consider shoddy craftsmanship and ugly decor luxury). Point is: new is market rate, and market rate is expensive. So people see new apartments go up with market rates and assume that it’s just intentional gouging vs a reaction to market forces. And this doesn’t even touch things like how zoning encourages buildings like this, etc.
luxury housing doesn't have a fixed luxury price; it just tends to be more expensive than lower end housing. I just moved into a relatively expensive apartment that is at the upper edge of what I can afford. rent in this area is actually experiencing a bit of downward pressure because several new high-end apartment buildings are going up at the same time. previously I was renting a place that was much cheaper. if the new place had been $100 more expensive, I wouldn't have moved. but I did move, and now someone with less money can live in the place I moved out of. the new building I moved into has many more units than the townhouses it replaced. if enough people like me move into it, they will no longer be bidding up the lower end housing.
I agree! I’m saying we should explain this phenomenon of luxury housing supply opening up more lower end units to people, rather than throwing our hands in the air and lamenting that people just don’t get it
Building new buildings still displaces people, and in many cases the new buildings do not replace the existing affordable units with an equivalent number of affordable units. Even if they do keep parity, the people need to be moved out (and moved around) for years, and finding section 8 housing can be a challenge. Moving can be costly and exhausting.
Even if you do move back into the same neighborhood after construction is complete and your rent isn't impacted too much (which is not a super common outcome), it's likely the community around you has changed. Gentrification increases the costs of basic food, clothing, and other resources in your area. You're local diner might be replaced with a wagyu beef slinging $15 hamburger joint. It's doing brisk business, but you can't afford to eat there. Your old dinged and dented grocery store or market stall is now a fancy Whole Foods.
That's not to say it's impossible to build or improve neighborhoods, but it's also not so easy as 'just build more on top of existing units.' The disruption and displacement of hundreds or thousands of lives for years is significant.
There's a healthy debate around how best to deal with this -- do we just bite the bullet and build a TON of housing all at once? Do we try to preserve the residency of the people currently living there and build up opportunistically? Do we try to decommodify housing altogether to remove the incentives that lead to this situation? (If we priced housing based on how well it provided housing, rather than based on what the market would bear, we'd see a different sort of situation, I'd imagine.) I dunno, maybe the combination is all three.
I highly, highly recommend this youtube playlist which works through these sorts of things using Cities Skylines (which is a great city sim game): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lvUByM-fZk&list=PLwkSQD3vqK...
Even if you do move back into the same neighborhood after construction is complete and your rent isn't impacted too much (which is not a super common outcome), it's likely the community around you has changed. Gentrification increases the costs of basic food, clothing, and other resources in your area. You're local diner might be replaced with a wagyu beef slinging $15 hamburger joint. It's doing brisk business, but you can't afford to eat there. Your old dinged and dented grocery store or market stall is now a fancy Whole Foods.
That's not to say it's impossible to build or improve neighborhoods, but it's also not so easy as 'just build more on top of existing units.' The disruption and displacement of hundreds or thousands of lives for years is significant.
There's a healthy debate around how best to deal with this -- do we just bite the bullet and build a TON of housing all at once? Do we try to preserve the residency of the people currently living there and build up opportunistically? Do we try to decommodify housing altogether to remove the incentives that lead to this situation? (If we priced housing based on how well it provided housing, rather than based on what the market would bear, we'd see a different sort of situation, I'd imagine.) I dunno, maybe the combination is all three.
I highly, highly recommend this youtube playlist which works through these sorts of things using Cities Skylines (which is a great city sim game): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lvUByM-fZk&list=PLwkSQD3vqK...
I agree there is some nuance, but a lot of the reason why people move in and build in that poorer area is that they've been zoned out of the wealthier area where it's impossible to build any new housing at all.
Look at Palo Alto and East Palo Alto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Palo_Alto,_California
So... yeah, build a ton of housing, but start doing it a lot more in the rich areas that have been exempt from it for far too long.
Look at Palo Alto and East Palo Alto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Palo_Alto,_California
So... yeah, build a ton of housing, but start doing it a lot more in the rich areas that have been exempt from it for far too long.
You could say that if you allow building everywhere it lowers the inflationary pressure everywhere.
New building that has been blocked in SF would replace a laundromat, chained lot that used to be a McDonalds, a Walgreens. Who exactly would have been displaced by any of those?
The argument that building new buildings "displaces" people is nonsense. In fact, I'd argue that more people are displaced by not building, due to supply constraints. Wealthy people will always be able to outbid others, and if supply doesn't keep up with demand people will be displaced.
Also, nobody is entitled to live anywhere they want at whatever price they want. It's this attitude that drives so many "affordable" housing programs that are complete failures (and a tax on the middle class).
Also, nobody is entitled to live anywhere they want at whatever price they want. It's this attitude that drives so many "affordable" housing programs that are complete failures (and a tax on the middle class).
> do we just bite the bullet and build a TON of housing all at once?
It sure worked for Harlem.
It sure worked for Harlem.
Gentrification is a really complex issue, because on one hand it is objectively improving an area, and on the other, basically anybody without housing equity (ie a mortgage) in the gentrifying area gets screwed.
I think it needs to be solved at a macro level, in a way that is nuanced and delicate. Because on one hand, assuming the rest of the world doesn’t change, making an area nicer to live is objectively good. And upper middle class people deserve housing too, and landowners perhaps should have at least some level of control over what they do with their property (you can argue that landlording in general could be abolished, but that’s a separate discussion).
Of course on the other hand, it is a shame that poor people have to fight to keep their neighborhoods shitty so that they don’t get displaced to somewhere far away from their jobs and community.
I’m not sure if there’s a great economic solution that still involves a market housing economy. The least worst solution I can think of is to basically carve out special units for the exact people displaced. IE if I want to built a 300 unit condo tower in West Oakland taking up a whole block, I have to provide current-market-rate rents for all the people currently living in that block.
I think it needs to be solved at a macro level, in a way that is nuanced and delicate. Because on one hand, assuming the rest of the world doesn’t change, making an area nicer to live is objectively good. And upper middle class people deserve housing too, and landowners perhaps should have at least some level of control over what they do with their property (you can argue that landlording in general could be abolished, but that’s a separate discussion).
Of course on the other hand, it is a shame that poor people have to fight to keep their neighborhoods shitty so that they don’t get displaced to somewhere far away from their jobs and community.
I’m not sure if there’s a great economic solution that still involves a market housing economy. The least worst solution I can think of is to basically carve out special units for the exact people displaced. IE if I want to built a 300 unit condo tower in West Oakland taking up a whole block, I have to provide current-market-rate rents for all the people currently living in that block.
> do we just bite the bullet and build a TON of housing all at once?
Yes, we absolutely should. I live in a tract house/neighborhood from the 40s in the East Bay, which is a cookie cutter house that was constructed en mass, and was cheap (For the time) and high quality. I believe the house was initially purchased for something like ~8k (~140k in 2019 money), but it is worth many more times than that solely because no more housing has been built en mass since the war.
We should of course move onto building multifamily homes, and away from the mess SFH suburbia created, but the principle remains the same: More housing availability pushes down prices for everyone.
Yes, we absolutely should. I live in a tract house/neighborhood from the 40s in the East Bay, which is a cookie cutter house that was constructed en mass, and was cheap (For the time) and high quality. I believe the house was initially purchased for something like ~8k (~140k in 2019 money), but it is worth many more times than that solely because no more housing has been built en mass since the war.
We should of course move onto building multifamily homes, and away from the mess SFH suburbia created, but the principle remains the same: More housing availability pushes down prices for everyone.
[deleted]
Not always. Real estate is a funny business and there are all sorts of tax rules, price floors, etc that distort the market.
In my area, new construction has raised the rent of “nice” apartments and shifted aging properties to Section 8, which is a defacto price floor.
In my area, new construction has raised the rent of “nice” apartments and shifted aging properties to Section 8, which is a defacto price floor.
It's not really a lot of people, just a loud minority with outsized influence in local politics and red rose Twitter. SB 50 polls 66% in favor to 18% against in California: https://sf.curbed.com/2019/5/17/18629809/sb-50-housing-trans...
Even in the best cases (i.e. where there isn't intentional voter suppression and gerrymandering), this is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. In my Seattle, for instance, city candidates will usually spend most of their canvassing efforts on (wealthier, older) homeowners rather than (pooorer, younger) renters. They do this because they know that homeowners will vote at much higher rates than renters. Yet this is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy: renters are also less likely to vote because none of the candidates have bothered reaching out to them.
So it's generally hard - for good reason - to persuade young people that any of the political candidates on the slate care about them. This has only barely begun to change recently.
So it's generally hard - for good reason - to persuade young people that any of the political candidates on the slate care about them. This has only barely begun to change recently.
Most of this isn’t due to voting but due to attendance / activism which retirees have a far greater ability to engage in without destroying work life balance.
[deleted]
The young people are often too busy working and generally trying to survive. They can't take time off to go vote, not to mention the gerrymandering where districts filled with retirees and the wealthy are prioritized.
If you want to fix voting for the younger generation the barriers to actually vote need to be lessened if not removed.
If you want to fix voting for the younger generation the barriers to actually vote need to be lessened if not removed.
Make voting day a holiday. Or just do it on Sundays like many countries do.
This is an inaccurate assessment, even in states like WA where all voting is done by mail and you have few weeks to actually do it, young people don't vote as much.
Young people’s brains have a lot going on and it’s hard to prioritize. Old folks already had their learning experiences of forgetting to vote or seeing the repercussions of not voting. No one is at fault per se and this is just a natural reflection of how people learn over time.
I happened to turn 18 right in time to vote in a [US] presidential election year. I've made a point to vote in every election I can from that point on.
Did I have "a lot going on"? Sure. Do I have utter faith in "The Government" and//or "The Voting Process"? Not really.
But I still vote. It's my right and also, as I've come to see it, my duty. Free speech or no, I believe that if I want to complain about an election and be taken seriously I should participate in it at at least the bare minimal active level.
Did I have "a lot going on"? Sure. Do I have utter faith in "The Government" and//or "The Voting Process"? Not really.
But I still vote. It's my right and also, as I've come to see it, my duty. Free speech or no, I believe that if I want to complain about an election and be taken seriously I should participate in it at at least the bare minimal active level.
My strong belief is that the PRIVILEGE to 'complain' (I usually use a different word) about the outcome depends on exercising the RIGHT to vote.
I've always made time to vote, and at least read the voter's pamphlet if not also further sources to attempt to make that vote an informed one.
I've always made time to vote, and at least read the voter's pamphlet if not also further sources to attempt to make that vote an informed one.
I'm curious: what other word do you use?
Asking for a thesaurus.
Asking for a thesaurus.
I’ve voted in every election since turning 18.
Like the parent comment said, there is a noticeable difference even in states like Washington. We have close to two weeks to fill out the ballots and mail it back or drop it off. There is a huge difference between "having a lot going on" and "procrastinating for two weeks". the ballots take ~5 minutes to fill out, and ~10 minutes to drop off.
IIRC the options to absentee / vote by mail has been growing dramatically.
When I moved to Washington [state] I was amazed that I could vote by mail -- and by default, too.
Since moving to California after that, I've voted by mail as much as possible, and I literally live right next door to my polling station; I see it and their parking spots right out my bedrooms' windows every day.
Since moving to California after that, I've voted by mail as much as possible, and I literally live right next door to my polling station; I see it and their parking spots right out my bedrooms' windows every day.
Young people have as much or more time than other groups.
Seniors have time but have trouble getting to the pols.
Middle age - Are working/picking up kids but still find time.
I think younger people see through the effectiveness of voting. If I do vote my vote seems to really not matter. If all young people vote as a block maybe an issue will be mentioned or moved towards something I like. But the effort / reward doesn't add up when the election is decided in the mid-west and the election is called before my vote is even records as a California resident.
It seems crazy that you are given two choices that basically blame each for everything gone wrong or take credit for everything positive but do the same thing when given the chance.
Liking a photo is so much more rewarding and feels like more of a direct impact.
Seniors have time but have trouble getting to the pols.
Middle age - Are working/picking up kids but still find time.
I think younger people see through the effectiveness of voting. If I do vote my vote seems to really not matter. If all young people vote as a block maybe an issue will be mentioned or moved towards something I like. But the effort / reward doesn't add up when the election is decided in the mid-west and the election is called before my vote is even records as a California resident.
It seems crazy that you are given two choices that basically blame each for everything gone wrong or take credit for everything positive but do the same thing when given the chance.
Liking a photo is so much more rewarding and feels like more of a direct impact.
> I think younger people see through the effectiveness of voting. If I do vote my vote seems to really not matter.
As long as young people keep thinking like that, and old people don't, old people will keep winning elections.
> If all young people vote as a block maybe an issue will be mentioned or moved towards something I like. But the effort / reward doesn't add up when the election is decided in the mid-west and the election is called before my vote is even records as a California resident.
State and local elections matter too.
As long as young people keep thinking like that, and old people don't, old people will keep winning elections.
> If all young people vote as a block maybe an issue will be mentioned or moved towards something I like. But the effort / reward doesn't add up when the election is decided in the mid-west and the election is called before my vote is even records as a California resident.
State and local elections matter too.
How many elections have you voted in or been eligible to vote in where a single vote being added or removed would have changed the outcome? Zero? Cool, me too.
Voting is not economically rational if it takes more than zero time, given those odds.
When so many people beat the drum of economic rationality, is it a surprise people don't vote? At most one of "economic rationality is valid" or "you should vote" is a true statement. When we're told that the former is true, we're being told not to vote.
There are modifications of "rationality" that actually provide a justification for voting. But you'll never see an economist acknowledge that superrationality is a thing, for instance.
Voting is not economically rational if it takes more than zero time, given those odds.
When so many people beat the drum of economic rationality, is it a surprise people don't vote? At most one of "economic rationality is valid" or "you should vote" is a true statement. When we're told that the former is true, we're being told not to vote.
There are modifications of "rationality" that actually provide a justification for voting. But you'll never see an economist acknowledge that superrationality is a thing, for instance.
Voting is a civic duty for a functional democracy. I don't understand the rampant defeatism I see in the "deliberate nonvoting" bloc, but the outcome seems obvious enough.
> How many elections have you voted in or been eligible to vote in where a single vote being added or removed would have changed the outcome? Zero? Cool, me too.
Is a thing only worth doing if you can cast yourself as the lone hero who turned the tide?
This seems like the Tragedy of the Commons. You fish in a stream, because why not? One person can never eat enough fish to make a dent in the population. Then a thousand of your neighbors fish the same stream. Soon it's completely depopulated, and there are no more fish for anyone, and everyone involved can still say "it wasn't my fault, my impact was barely noticeable."
Either it's nobody's fault, just a totally unavoidable act of God, or it's everybody's fault, and you all should have worked together to address it. Only one of those ways of thinking will get anything done.
Is a thing only worth doing if you can cast yourself as the lone hero who turned the tide?
This seems like the Tragedy of the Commons. You fish in a stream, because why not? One person can never eat enough fish to make a dent in the population. Then a thousand of your neighbors fish the same stream. Soon it's completely depopulated, and there are no more fish for anyone, and everyone involved can still say "it wasn't my fault, my impact was barely noticeable."
Either it's nobody's fault, just a totally unavoidable act of God, or it's everybody's fault, and you all should have worked together to address it. Only one of those ways of thinking will get anything done.
> How many elections have you voted in or been eligible to vote in where a single vote being added or removed would have changed the outcome? Zero? Cool, me too.
So if you aren't the one, single deciding vote it's not worthwhile? That's an immature approach. All the more immature because you go on to couch it in rhetoric about economics and "rationality" that amounts to nothing more than third rate sophistry.
You're not a taxi cab that has to be in service 24 hours a day to maximize utilization. You're a person with responsibilities. Your "economic rationality" is just a lazy justification for only doing what you feel like doing ("provides marginal value!") and never doing anything you don't.
If you're going to be a bum, be honest with yourself and those around you.
So if you aren't the one, single deciding vote it's not worthwhile? That's an immature approach. All the more immature because you go on to couch it in rhetoric about economics and "rationality" that amounts to nothing more than third rate sophistry.
You're not a taxi cab that has to be in service 24 hours a day to maximize utilization. You're a person with responsibilities. Your "economic rationality" is just a lazy justification for only doing what you feel like doing ("provides marginal value!") and never doing anything you don't.
If you're going to be a bum, be honest with yourself and those around you.
I have voted in every election I could since I turned 18.
In one of those elections, my preferred candidate won by a mere 129 votes out of 2.8 million votes cast:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Washington_gubernatorial_...
If you don't vote, you won't be able to tell if your vote "really mattered" in an election until it's too late to do anything.
In one of those elections, my preferred candidate won by a mere 129 votes out of 2.8 million votes cast:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Washington_gubernatorial_...
If you don't vote, you won't be able to tell if your vote "really mattered" in an election until it's too late to do anything.
People of all ages have always been too busy working and generally trying to survive. That's a wretched excuse for not exercising your franchise and worthy of the contempt that gets piled on whiny entitled people that expect some kind of trophy just for showing up at the polls.
Maybe we should make election day a national holiday.
> People of all ages have always been too busy working and generally trying to survive.
Traditionally older people tend to have (or have had) more set schedules/defined work hours, more benefits (paid time off), and better job security in general. I'm not saying it's impossible for kids today to vote, but there are some disturbing trends in employment and the way workers are treated that I can see making it harder than it's been for previous generations.
Previous generations were able to support themselves at least enough to move out of their parent's homes. Young adults today are clearly struggling in ways that past generations haven't had to and that's going to strain how much time and effort they can spend on local and state politics.
Of course none of that addresses the larger issues like voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering which limit the impact of voters making the effort seem less worthwhile.
I still think young people should do everything the can to get involved and vote, but I'm not going to pretend that any mention of their struggles can be dismissed by calling them "whiny entitled people"
Traditionally older people tend to have (or have had) more set schedules/defined work hours, more benefits (paid time off), and better job security in general. I'm not saying it's impossible for kids today to vote, but there are some disturbing trends in employment and the way workers are treated that I can see making it harder than it's been for previous generations.
Previous generations were able to support themselves at least enough to move out of their parent's homes. Young adults today are clearly struggling in ways that past generations haven't had to and that's going to strain how much time and effort they can spend on local and state politics.
Of course none of that addresses the larger issues like voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering which limit the impact of voters making the effort seem less worthwhile.
I still think young people should do everything the can to get involved and vote, but I'm not going to pretend that any mention of their struggles can be dismissed by calling them "whiny entitled people"
[deleted]
I don't agree with you being downvoted here...take another issue that is disproportionately effecting the young: Student Loans.
Every year more than 1M people default on their student loans, ruining their credit and essentially their lives.
Currently this is a voting block of 8M people and it will continue to grow by 1M every year. There is one candidate who has promised to forgive all student loans, and yet the person won't garner anywhere close to 8M votes.
There is a coordinated effort to indebt young people with loans they will spend the next 40-50 years of their life paying. Their degrees won't even pay for themselves as evidence by the fact these young people who historically could at least move out and begin their lives are no longer able to afford to do so...and when these issues are mentioned people are silenced (or downvoted into the grey so their comments can't be read).
There is more to this than young people don't vote, especially where they have every reason.
Every year more than 1M people default on their student loans, ruining their credit and essentially their lives.
Currently this is a voting block of 8M people and it will continue to grow by 1M every year. There is one candidate who has promised to forgive all student loans, and yet the person won't garner anywhere close to 8M votes.
There is a coordinated effort to indebt young people with loans they will spend the next 40-50 years of their life paying. Their degrees won't even pay for themselves as evidence by the fact these young people who historically could at least move out and begin their lives are no longer able to afford to do so...and when these issues are mentioned people are silenced (or downvoted into the grey so their comments can't be read).
There is more to this than young people don't vote, especially where they have every reason.
Only 18% of the population live in swing states though. Assuming an even distribution, that's < 1.5 million votes.
I think that is a fair point (although certainly we wouldn't find even distribution of these people across the States, but I can't provide the statistical breakdown).
However, 8 Million is the potential voting block of people who have already defaulted on their student loans...there are a total of 44.7 Million people with student loans who all would be interested and benefit from loan forgiveness/abatement. To put those numbers in perspective it it just exceeds the number of elderly voters on Medicare (44 Million).
However, 8 Million is the potential voting block of people who have already defaulted on their student loans...there are a total of 44.7 Million people with student loans who all would be interested and benefit from loan forgiveness/abatement. To put those numbers in perspective it it just exceeds the number of elderly voters on Medicare (44 Million).
There are still many issues to vote on.
Also, if you live on a red state vote for a moderate. Try to influence the primaries.
Also, if you live on a red state vote for a moderate. Try to influence the primaries.
I don't think you'll find much sympathy for those who take out college loans beyond what their future occupation will realistically support in a forum like this.
"The young people are often too busy working and generally trying to survive"
I find this a very questionable statement. Most middle age people are working 40+ hours, on top of devoting hours to kids, maintenance etc. They are every bit as busy as young people, if not more so.
Politicians respond to only 2 things, votes and lobbyist dollars. If people want to make a change and have politicians stop ignoring them then they need to establish themselves as a reliable voting block. Until they do this they are just shouting into the wind / twitter / reddit / facebook.
Voting by absentee ballot takes minutes, everyone who want to has time for that.
I find this a very questionable statement. Most middle age people are working 40+ hours, on top of devoting hours to kids, maintenance etc. They are every bit as busy as young people, if not more so.
Politicians respond to only 2 things, votes and lobbyist dollars. If people want to make a change and have politicians stop ignoring them then they need to establish themselves as a reliable voting block. Until they do this they are just shouting into the wind / twitter / reddit / facebook.
Voting by absentee ballot takes minutes, everyone who want to has time for that.
I would guess that comparison to be very misleading. Singles presumably don't want to live in the countryside, they want to live in big cities with jobs and other people they could meet. In big cities, there tends to be little space for building, so especially little space for building 3 car garages.
So I would guess most 3 car garages are built in the countryside, where there is lots of space for building.
The two numbers point to completely separate issues.
If singles would be willing to move to the countryside, perhaps they wouldn't have a problem to find accommodation. (A job could be a different matter).
So I would guess most 3 car garages are built in the countryside, where there is lots of space for building.
The two numbers point to completely separate issues.
If singles would be willing to move to the countryside, perhaps they wouldn't have a problem to find accommodation. (A job could be a different matter).
They also build—knowingly—on flood planes without concern for buyers.
They also use shitty materials. Compare a modern house with century-or-more home which are often timeless art pieces.
They also use shitty materials. Compare a modern house with century-or-more home which are often timeless art pieces.
I think this is selection bias, because all of the junk old homes have fallen apart or been torn down by now. I get what you're saying though: older houses tend to use more real wood and bricks and other materials which are now done with cheaper, modern equivalents like drywall and plywood.
I guess parents can then justify the huge house and 3 car garage by hanging on to the children for a few extra years.
Or maybe the "going out and working" phase of life is delayed between 3 and 6 years longer than it used to be
Well, similar thing happens in China with all the building they do and despite few single family detached housing...
China is so populous that their largest cities are running up against the current technological limits of housing density. Beijing is especially challenging - it’s hard to build any more densely there without very careful planning; the city’s development could be warped by the Marchetti constant.
North American cities are sparse and are nowhere near our tech limits. Housing shortages in North America are due to nothing more than bad regulation.
North American cities are sparse and are nowhere near our tech limits. Housing shortages in North America are due to nothing more than bad regulation.
[deleted]
The problem old people have with apartments is that they attract perceived ne'er-do-wells with little financial resources. Harold the Retiree does not want to hear your Subaru with the fart cannon on the back going up and down the road while he's trying to watch the sun set on his back porch, doesn't want your drug dealer causing trouble on his block, and certainly doesn't care to see your piercings and tattoos in the grocery store.
> doesn't care to see your piercings and tattoos in the grocery store.
Harold can fuck right off then because that's not his business. The other two, could potentially be an issue, however, but in my experience, most apartments like that are not filled with retirees, but working class individuals and to an extent working class families.
Harold can fuck right off then because that's not his business. The other two, could potentially be an issue, however, but in my experience, most apartments like that are not filled with retirees, but working class individuals and to an extent working class families.
>>>> doesn't care to see your piercings and tattoos in the grocery store.
>>Harold can fuck right off then because that's not his business.
Don't come to Japan then. [1][2] Like it or not, some cultures (including the older generation of Americans) hold certain social mores that include expectations of public appearance and decorum.
[1]https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/12/19/national/stigma...
[2]https://observers.france24.com/en/20170504-japanese-authorit...
>>Harold can fuck right off then because that's not his business.
Don't come to Japan then. [1][2] Like it or not, some cultures (including the older generation of Americans) hold certain social mores that include expectations of public appearance and decorum.
[1]https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/12/19/national/stigma...
[2]https://observers.france24.com/en/20170504-japanese-authorit...
I spent a lot of time in Italy, and there, rather than SFH for 'good' people here, and rent-only apartments for 'bad' people there, you have a lot more 4/6/8/10 unit buildings where you own the single unit and can either live in it or rent it out. So things are a lot more mixed. I think this leads to more integration and better outcomes.
The house I live in currently is exactly this. It's a block of townhouses (20ish total), grouped in sets of 4, where each person owns their individual unit. We have a pretty diverse mix of people, and I quite like it.
Harold has freedom of movement, just as you and I do. If Harold can afford to live in a neighbourhood where tattoos and piercings guy can’t, who are we to stop him?
The real problem with gentrification is the unearned increase in property values that accrue to owners and not renters. This could be solved with Georgist land value taxes [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
The real problem with gentrification is the unearned increase in property values that accrue to owners and not renters. This could be solved with Georgist land value taxes [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
Ironically for Harold the Retiree, High income renters are the fastest growing segment within the rental population: https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/rich-and-renting-u...
What’s more amazing to me is that the young generation sees these central-planning bureaucrats lock down freedom to build (via increased legislation, permitting, etc) and then days “yeah! Send those people to the federal government!”
What we really need is less people.
Seriously though, no matter how efficient we get with our space, eventually we'll hit a wall and the solution is going to be exactly the same as it always was and is: reproduce less quickly.
The only difference is how much nature will be left when we get to that point.
I've started to look at houses with yards as miniature nature preserves.
To Downvoters: I feel I've done a decent job outlining the futility of more and more compact housing. I'd like to know what your logic if you disagree.
Seriously though, no matter how efficient we get with our space, eventually we'll hit a wall and the solution is going to be exactly the same as it always was and is: reproduce less quickly.
The only difference is how much nature will be left when we get to that point.
I've started to look at houses with yards as miniature nature preserves.
To Downvoters: I feel I've done a decent job outlining the futility of more and more compact housing. I'd like to know what your logic if you disagree.
The United States has had a below-replacement total fertility rate for a decade+:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA
Japan's total fertility rate has been consistently below-replacement since 1975:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINJPN
Nonetheless, it took until 2010 for Japan's total population to peak and begin to decline. It's estimated to take until 2042 for Japan's population to fall lower than it was in 1975:
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/japan-population/
That's a 67 year lag between a country reducing birth rates below replacement and the country actually having more space available per capita.
So I downvoted you on two counts:
1) You seemed to be unaware that the US is already reproducing less, to the extent that its population will eventually decline without immigration.
2) "Reproduce less" takes a very long time to reduce total population. It takes many decades even if there is no immigration. Its influence is far too slow to help today's young adults afford their own living spaces.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA
Japan's total fertility rate has been consistently below-replacement since 1975:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINJPN
Nonetheless, it took until 2010 for Japan's total population to peak and begin to decline. It's estimated to take until 2042 for Japan's population to fall lower than it was in 1975:
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/japan-population/
That's a 67 year lag between a country reducing birth rates below replacement and the country actually having more space available per capita.
So I downvoted you on two counts:
1) You seemed to be unaware that the US is already reproducing less, to the extent that its population will eventually decline without immigration.
2) "Reproduce less" takes a very long time to reduce total population. It takes many decades even if there is no immigration. Its influence is far too slow to help today's young adults afford their own living spaces.
> the US is already reproducing less,
I am aware. Every civilization thus far has done this as technology advances. But it's a lot more happenstance than intentional. We're not actively trying to have less children for the sake of making anything better.
> "Reproduce less" takes a very long time Pretty much every real solution to any problem I have ever seen takes generations. If the point of more housing is to mitigate suffering while these changes take root, that sounds realistic and responsible. As it is, it sounds like nobody has any thoughts at all about when we should realistically cap ourselves and I don't think that's responsible.
> "Reproduce less" takes a very long time Pretty much every real solution to any problem I have ever seen takes generations. If the point of more housing is to mitigate suffering while these changes take root, that sounds realistic and responsible. As it is, it sounds like nobody has any thoughts at all about when we should realistically cap ourselves and I don't think that's responsible.
There's only a dereliction of responsibility if a trend is going in the wrong direction and nobody thinks about how it can be reversed. If something that you want to happen is already happening, and you understand that it's going to take a long time regardless of how much active planning is involved, you don't need to do anything but wait.
> There's only a dereliction of responsibility if a trend is going in the wrong direction and nobody thinks about how it can be reversed
It appears your argument is that reproducing less is good, but we're already doing it (though not on purpose), so therefore me saying we should do it on purpose is wrong?
It appears your argument is that reproducing less is good, but we're already doing it (though not on purpose), so therefore me saying we should do it on purpose is wrong?
> What we really need is less people.
Okay, here's the thesis. Sounds like neo-Malthusianism.
> Seriously though, no matter how efficient we get with our space, eventually we'll hit a wall and the solution is going to be exactly the same as it always was and is: reproduce less quickly.
Yep, that's the Malthusian endgame. Unpacking this claim, it seems to be claiming that the Earth is a closed-system that we can't escape. Now I'm looking for evidence or supporting arguments that prove that.
> The only difference is how much nature will be left when we get to that point.
What exactly does the phrase "how much nature will be left" mean to you? This is too hand-wavy, especially for such a heavy-handed conclusion.
> I've started to look at houses with yards as miniature nature preserves.
Is a golf course a nature preserve? No. Of course not. It's an extremely controlled environment. Any wildlife foolish enough to try to inhabit it that doesn't fit in a coffee cup will almost certainly be chased off, trapped or killed.
Okay, here's the thesis. Sounds like neo-Malthusianism.
> Seriously though, no matter how efficient we get with our space, eventually we'll hit a wall and the solution is going to be exactly the same as it always was and is: reproduce less quickly.
Yep, that's the Malthusian endgame. Unpacking this claim, it seems to be claiming that the Earth is a closed-system that we can't escape. Now I'm looking for evidence or supporting arguments that prove that.
> The only difference is how much nature will be left when we get to that point.
What exactly does the phrase "how much nature will be left" mean to you? This is too hand-wavy, especially for such a heavy-handed conclusion.
> I've started to look at houses with yards as miniature nature preserves.
Is a golf course a nature preserve? No. Of course not. It's an extremely controlled environment. Any wildlife foolish enough to try to inhabit it that doesn't fit in a coffee cup will almost certainly be chased off, trapped or killed.
Or mutated by chemicals used to service the machines, treat the grass or clean the premises.
Backyards do provide a nature preserve for a city. They take heat away and allows birds/raccoons/squirrels/butterflies a place to eat/rest. If they all were converted to apartments the city would be worse off. A balance of both makes sense.
Actually your usual backyard lawns are not much better than concrete slabs as far as biodiversity goes. [0]
https://earther.gizmodo.com/lawns-are-an-ecological-disaster...
https://earther.gizmodo.com/lawns-are-an-ecological-disaster...
The current population increases by about 140 people per minute. How do you intend to launch people off the earth at that kind of rate?
Because we live in three-dimensional space, there's no reason for us to run out of room unless we stop building (especially upwards).
The constraint isn't necessarily that people have to leave the planet so much as we need to ensure access to minerals and high industrial capacity.
When we exhaust "nearby" minerals and space transit has advanced enough, colonization will look more attractive.
Will we hit a bottleneck along the way? I don't know. But it would be an awful shame if it were political.
The constraint isn't necessarily that people have to leave the planet so much as we need to ensure access to minerals and high industrial capacity.
When we exhaust "nearby" minerals and space transit has advanced enough, colonization will look more attractive.
Will we hit a bottleneck along the way? I don't know. But it would be an awful shame if it were political.
We could house trillions of people on the earth in skyscrapers if we needed to. We could even feed them with nuclear powered greenhouses. There are lots of reasons we don't want to do that. Room isn't one of them.
This reminds me of the now-complete podcast series "Our Fair City" and the HartLife Insurance tower.
Go to the Midwest. Go look at remote parts of any continent, Russia, China. There is absolutely enough space.
You should get out of the city more often.
You should get out of the city more often.
Physical area we could potentially pack people into isn't really the problem. There are a lot of other considerations like biocapacity and employment options which are also important concerns. We could put a lot of people in remote parts of the world but where will they work? Shop? Those places often lack the kinds of critical infrastructure that would attract and sustain a thriving population.
I think overpopulation isn't our most pressing issue right now, but generally there are a lot of advantages to having fewer people.
I think overpopulation isn't our most pressing issue right now, but generally there are a lot of advantages to having fewer people.
They lack infrastructure because there isn't the demand for infrastructure. We build where there is demand, and the building creates further demand. It's a self-reinforcing cycle.
This a bad argument for several reasons. 1) Most predictions already have the population leveling off around 9-11 billion people. 2) the economy is designed for an ever expanding population. There are be very serious negative economic repercussions to stalled or negative population growth. 3) There is no moral way to enforce this, so whats the point of even bringing it up?
1. So let's call it 11 billion, build for that, and no more.
2. If the economy need's growth but is going to level out at 11 billion, we should think about that now.
3. Enforcement is heavy handed, but at least admitting it would be a step in the right direction.
2. If the economy need's growth but is going to level out at 11 billion, we should think about that now.
3. Enforcement is heavy handed, but at least admitting it would be a step in the right direction.
Economic growth is scored through productivity gains, not more people.
In fact less people may help in some cases.
[deleted]
Housing isn't a big portion of the land used to support most individuals. Food is the big one.
We need less people in places that cannot support having as many people as they already have. Building sprawling exurbs in the southwestern deserts comes to mind. Or some other cases that cannot be acknowledged in polite company.
Most developed nations are below replacement rate, and you don't have to look far in places like the northeast or midwest of the US to see places that are going to seed and reverting back into wilderness.
Most developed nations are below replacement rate, and you don't have to look far in places like the northeast or midwest of the US to see places that are going to seed and reverting back into wilderness.
Well, unless you wanna get all Stalin-y, the current people are here to stay, and we have more than enough space to house them. I don’t wanna hear any nonsense about not having enough room. Saying “we have too many people” isn’t a solution, it’s just a falsehood.
Hey, this Soylent Green stuff isn't half bad.
Really single-family-only zoning should be banned by federal law. Force cities to build duplexes/triplexes/four-plexes everywhere. We're stuck in this stupid single-family-or-idiotic-"luxury"-condo idiocy because of that.
Can we have proper building standards first? Right now, the level of noise insulation in the US is abysmal, consequently no one will move into a multiplex unless they absolutely have to. That's why the perception that multiplexes attract undesirables is actually justified, and no one wants them and their externalities in their neighbourhood of single-family housing.
Requiring noise insulation would drive the cost up. A better option would be to have optional noise mitigation measurements done in a cheap way so that buildings could certify for a given level of noise transmission between units.
You would have each unit certified as either A, B or C. C being nearly no noise insulation, A being very quiet.
Let the market decide what they want to pay for.
You would have each unit certified as either A, B or C. C being nearly no noise insulation, A being very quiet.
Let the market decide what they want to pay for.
>Requiring noise insulation would drive the cost up
As if construction costs were the primary factor in determining the cost of real estate in places with housing crisis problems (like the Bay Area).
As if construction costs were the primary factor in determining the cost of real estate in places with housing crisis problems (like the Bay Area).
Construction costs are very high in the Bay Area, and it is one component that holds back the construction of ADUs (in-law units) wchi hostage requires cities to support.
Of course, then you’d ask, well why are construction costs so high in the Bay Area? And you might hear something about earthquakes, insulation, whatever. But the real reason is that contractors and construction workers need to live here too, and living here is damn expensive!
Of course, then you’d ask, well why are construction costs so high in the Bay Area? And you might hear something about earthquakes, insulation, whatever. But the real reason is that contractors and construction workers need to live here too, and living here is damn expensive!
Requiring noise insulation will drive down the cost of noise insulation.
Assuming there's multiple, competitive producers of noise insulation.
Noise insulation isn't a type of material, it's a construction method. Hanging drywall on resilient channel, staggering 2x4 studs on 2x6 bottom and top plates and weaving insulation between them, solid doors, and dual/triple pane windows are all examples of this.
> Let the market decide what they want to pay for.
You're making an assumption that noise insulation is particularly subject to the market. Unfortunately noise 'insulation' like other insulation is extremely sensitive to competence in instiallation and maintenance.
Because it isn't particularly easy to gauge when shopping I don't believe that it is... and in markets where there are more prospective renters than units, it especially isn't.
You're making an assumption that noise insulation is particularly subject to the market. Unfortunately noise 'insulation' like other insulation is extremely sensitive to competence in instiallation and maintenance.
Because it isn't particularly easy to gauge when shopping I don't believe that it is... and in markets where there are more prospective renters than units, it especially isn't.
Agreed with everything you said... which is why I said we need a rating system based on the actual noise dampening, not on materials used.
It'd also mean the poor would never have peace and quiet.
A roof over your head beats no roof at all, by a long shot.
And for some people, it beats a 3 hour commute. People should be free to choose what they prefer as long as it's safe.
And for some people, it beats a 3 hour commute. People should be free to choose what they prefer as long as it's safe.
[deleted]
The market has already decided that any noise insulation is too much of a cost. That's why there's a bunch of incredibly cheap apartment complexes springing up around Austin with the bare minimum of effort.
And since housing is a zero sum game the market is already rigged in favor of landlords. People generally don't have as much choice where to live when you start considering school access, public transit, commute and so forth. Relying on the market to solve housing will simply result in miniature SFs popping up over the US, just like what's happening to Austin.
And since housing is a zero sum game the market is already rigged in favor of landlords. People generally don't have as much choice where to live when you start considering school access, public transit, commute and so forth. Relying on the market to solve housing will simply result in miniature SFs popping up over the US, just like what's happening to Austin.
[deleted]
With no minimum standards there's a neverending race to the bottom. People need to sleep.
I live in a concrete high rise and I don’t really notice any noise from my neighbors (the street noise is much, much worse as emergency sirens pierce even double-pane windows).
There are also plenty of multiplex designs that have good noise insulation.
In reality people do want to live in them which is why zoning laws are used to prevent them from being built. If people refused to live there, there would be no need for zoning as developers wouldn’t build homes people don’t live in.
There are also plenty of multiplex designs that have good noise insulation.
In reality people do want to live in them which is why zoning laws are used to prevent them from being built. If people refused to live there, there would be no need for zoning as developers wouldn’t build homes people don’t live in.
Me too. However, everywhere I've lived previously has been awful with neighbor noise. Duplexes are less likely to sound like our giant concrete quiet buildings and more likely to sound like my old noisy as hell places.
I lived in an apartment in Montreal where the guy below me would invite hookers over, snort coke and get strangled, you could hear him getting chocked and the crack pipe being 'tink tinked' beforehand, then the high heels walking out of his den at 0230 in the morning lol. Noise insulation is very important!
> Really single-family-only zoning should be banned by federal law.
There's not even a shadow of Constitutional argument that that's a federal power.
There's not even a shadow of Constitutional argument that that's a federal power.
State law? Most cities in Canada exist as charters passed by their provincial governments. Is the same true in the US?
Oregon just did this with HB 2001, which re-legalizes some "missing middle" housing in a lot of our cities.
Even Raich and Filburn wouldn't support this, and even with those the Commerce Clause has limits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
That law was simply re-passed with the clause "has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce." as noted on the link.
A similar clause could be attached to the mentioned zoning law. (E.g. a person from one state buys land in another state? No zoning allowed - and because buying land within a state affects the prices for interstate purchases, suddenly there’s a nexus for regulation of purely intrastate purchases too!)
Not saying it’s a great idea, but it’s hardly clearly unconstitutional under modern precedent and interpretation.
A similar clause could be attached to the mentioned zoning law. (E.g. a person from one state buys land in another state? No zoning allowed - and because buying land within a state affects the prices for interstate purchases, suddenly there’s a nexus for regulation of purely intrastate purchases too!)
Not saying it’s a great idea, but it’s hardly clearly unconstitutional under modern precedent and interpretation.
Wickard v. Filburn was a new-deal-era case adjudicated when the court operated under threat of being packed by Roosevelt if it did not comply [0].
A strict constructionist reading of the constitution would suggest that Gonzales v. Raich is judicial activism, and indeed, all the judges signatory to the majority opinion tend to be the "big government" types. Note that O'Connor and Rehnquist, two famous justices who often sided with strict constructionism, dissented. O'Connor wrote that though she did not support California's actions, she respected its right to do so:
"Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. "
Thomas also dissented, for somewhat similar principles though with different wording. Source for this is your link.
We don't implement things like this federally because needs differ. Bozeman, Montana can probably zone and sprawl as needed; it's small and there's lots of land. San Francisco can't. Why would any one feel the need to apply the same rules to both, unless it was an attempt to force a particular ideology on another? If there is sufficient support for something, it ought to pass just as well at the state or local level.
[0]: https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packin...
A strict constructionist reading of the constitution would suggest that Gonzales v. Raich is judicial activism, and indeed, all the judges signatory to the majority opinion tend to be the "big government" types. Note that O'Connor and Rehnquist, two famous justices who often sided with strict constructionism, dissented. O'Connor wrote that though she did not support California's actions, she respected its right to do so:
"Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. "
Thomas also dissented, for somewhat similar principles though with different wording. Source for this is your link.
We don't implement things like this federally because needs differ. Bozeman, Montana can probably zone and sprawl as needed; it's small and there's lots of land. San Francisco can't. Why would any one feel the need to apply the same rules to both, unless it was an attempt to force a particular ideology on another? If there is sufficient support for something, it ought to pass just as well at the state or local level.
[0]: https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packin...
Arguably most of the US government is unconstitutional under such a strict constructionist view of the constitution.
In practice, considering home construction and home buying are often transacted in interstate commerce (e.g. a company buying parts or supplies from out of state to build), it’s likely a Supreme Court case against a law relating to zoning could be upheld. The federal government already claims the ability to regulate other things such as guns constructed within the borders of a state and never moved outside them, all based on the arguments upheld in cases like Wickard that they possibly could affect interstate commerce.
In practice, considering home construction and home buying are often transacted in interstate commerce (e.g. a company buying parts or supplies from out of state to build), it’s likely a Supreme Court case against a law relating to zoning could be upheld. The federal government already claims the ability to regulate other things such as guns constructed within the borders of a state and never moved outside them, all based on the arguments upheld in cases like Wickard that they possibly could affect interstate commerce.
We don't implement things like this federally because needs differ. Bozeman, Montana can probably zone and sprawl as needed; it's small and there's lots of land. San Francisco can't.
If Bozeman, Montana can sprawl without worry, why does it even need restrictive zoning laws mandating SFH’s? That’s what doesn’t make sense. People who move to Bozeman clearly want to live in SFH’s. Outlawing restrictive zoning laws doesn’t affect them in the least.
If Bozeman, Montana can sprawl without worry, why does it even need restrictive zoning laws mandating SFH’s? That’s what doesn’t make sense. People who move to Bozeman clearly want to live in SFH’s. Outlawing restrictive zoning laws doesn’t affect them in the least.
Single-family housing seems perfectly reasonable in non-competitive, rural environments. No need force multi-family housing in those areas.
Sure, but let the market figure it out rather than mandate it?
The post being replied to calls for mandating it the other way:
> Force cities to build duplexes/triplexes/four-plexes everywhere.
> Force cities to build duplexes/triplexes/four-plexes everywhere.
Yeah I would disagree with that. We should remove as many barriers to that kind of housing as possible, but no one knows the 'correct' mix of housing options in any given city.
We could have zoning that allows for either and let the market decide. I'm sure no developer will build a giant condo tower in the middle of rural nowhere.
Multi-family housing "in the middle of nowhere" could look appetizing for reducing municipal costs. You need a lot more roads, power/water lines, in single residence communities than in urban areas.
Declining tax bases in rural areas will be death by a thousand cuts. It takes serious cash for a municipality to "keep the lights on".
This may sound slightly contrary to my prior opinion, but there ought be a middle ground between the free choice of wanting a SFH, but also having some level of community planning that ensures the community remains viable.
Declining tax bases in rural areas will be death by a thousand cuts. It takes serious cash for a municipality to "keep the lights on".
This may sound slightly contrary to my prior opinion, but there ought be a middle ground between the free choice of wanting a SFH, but also having some level of community planning that ensures the community remains viable.
A common pattern for that kind of thing is small condo buildings with 4 to 6 units, run as co-ops by the unit owners (no HOA or management company). It's a simple way to get some economy of scale benefits in general maintenance and public utilities, and to have a few neighbors to deter crime that might otherwise target isolated homes.
Ending parking minimums is right up there too.
Speak for you own state or city. My city has no problem with sane development of single family homes, townhomes, condos/apartments and high rise housing.
Which city?
Metro Atlanta. I watched 3 high rises go up in the span of a year when I worked downtown, 1 catering to Georgia Tech students and 2 for anyone (with a huge focus on young adults). The in-town area I just moved from started addressing concerns about single family homes by working with developers to build high density apartments and lofts. They passed “workforce” zoning for housing to combat gentrification[1].
[1] https://www.reporternewspapers.net/2018/12/15/brookhaven-pio...
[1] https://www.reporternewspapers.net/2018/12/15/brookhaven-pio...
This opinion would generate a lot of justifiable anger from families who love their homes and live in areas that aren't under high housing pressure, but I suspect that you didn't mean to say that this should be applied literally everywhere.
If there is not high housing pressure, not much will change.
Banning single family zoning does not equate to banning single family homes!
It's more like: re-legalizing a lot of different housing options.
Banning single family zoning does not equate to banning single family homes!
It's more like: re-legalizing a lot of different housing options.
Banning single family zoning would eventually cause single family homes to disappear. Without legal limits, the market will always converge on what’s most profitable to developers, which is currently “stuffing as many units as legal/possible into the space.”
This type of construction is only so profitable because it's usually illegal, and therefore a critically undersupplied segment of the market. Developers are therefore eager to do it every chance they get. If it were legal to build this way everywhere, they would only do it in the places it made sense. Developers wouldn't be building 4-story condos in Contra Costa county for people to commute 50 miles into SF and Mountain View if they were alowed to build enough to meet demand in SF and Mountain View.
Where people want to build, the power-hungry folks in charge put restrictions in place and demand a troll toll to let a few projects through. And the folks in charge where nobody wants to build see the opportunity and seize it. It's just human nature, and it's the reason local government shouldn't be put in charge of density regulation.
Where people want to build, the power-hungry folks in charge put restrictions in place and demand a troll toll to let a few projects through. And the folks in charge where nobody wants to build see the opportunity and seize it. It's just human nature, and it's the reason local government shouldn't be put in charge of density regulation.
There is plenty of single family housing in Italy, where I lived for many years, and where most other housing types are legal.
If someone is happy in their SFH, why would it disappear?
If someone has the money, they'll be able to build new ones too.
Yeah, maybe central San Francisco won't have many, as people cash out, but that seems pretty reasonable. You can go live in Lakeview Oregon and have a huge house on a huge lot if that's what you want.
If someone is happy in their SFH, why would it disappear?
If someone has the money, they'll be able to build new ones too.
Yeah, maybe central San Francisco won't have many, as people cash out, but that seems pretty reasonable. You can go live in Lakeview Oregon and have a huge house on a huge lot if that's what you want.
The absolute construction costs for a high-rise are a lot higher than for a low-rise 4 story apartment building. If I can't fill a high-rise in your city, why would I build it? I'm better off building the low-rise and selling-through.
Besides - SFH's predate most restrictive zoning laws (which really caught on in the 70's). SFH's, at the edges of the city, aren't going anywhere.
Besides - SFH's predate most restrictive zoning laws (which really caught on in the 70's). SFH's, at the edges of the city, aren't going anywhere.
There's many, many, many parts of the country where single family homes are fine. Just don't let people zone or over-regulate away higher density options and the market does a fine job of adding more dense forms of housing where needed.
They said "single-family-only", not a ban on single family homes.
It followed that statement with
> Force cities to build duplexes/triplexes/four-plexes everywhere.
which makes the intention ambiguous and slanted towards banning single family homes.
> Force cities to build duplexes/triplexes/four-plexes everywhere.
which makes the intention ambiguous and slanted towards banning single family homes.
The comment now reads "single-family-only zoning should be banned by federal law"
I distinctly recall it calling for a ban on single family housing. Considering that there are many replies calling it an overreaction and replying as thought it called for a ban on single family housing in general I would be willing to bet money it did not originally say what it says now.
I distinctly recall it calling for a ban on single family housing. Considering that there are many replies calling it an overreaction and replying as thought it called for a ban on single family housing in general I would be willing to bet money it did not originally say what it says now.
That's a bit much.
In my city a 400 sq.ft "starter" apartment will cost you around $300k, and there's 15% down payment too - so young adults straight out of college need to have $45k in cash, just to get a mortgage.
Rent for a similar apartment is around $1200-$1500 month. If you start at zero, and have a regular paying professional job, you'll spend around 3-5 years saving up for the down payment - depending on how frugal you live.
But if you have resourceful parents, it's no problem to get your own place. Banks will gladly re-mortgage their (paid down) house, or use it as collateral.
In fact, there's quite a divide here, first-time house owners are getting younger, because their parents will bankroll the mortgage / down payment, just to get their kids in on the housing market. They know that if they have to wait 5-10 years, the market will be much more expensive.
The big problem (IMO) with our housing market is that it takes too much time to get projects started, especially big affordable apartment complexes, because the established owners will engage in full-force NIMBY-ism warfare on any developers that dare to steal their precious sunlight or "visual pollution".
I don't live in the US, but I feel we share a lot of the similar problems when it comes to the housing market.
Rent for a similar apartment is around $1200-$1500 month. If you start at zero, and have a regular paying professional job, you'll spend around 3-5 years saving up for the down payment - depending on how frugal you live.
But if you have resourceful parents, it's no problem to get your own place. Banks will gladly re-mortgage their (paid down) house, or use it as collateral.
In fact, there's quite a divide here, first-time house owners are getting younger, because their parents will bankroll the mortgage / down payment, just to get their kids in on the housing market. They know that if they have to wait 5-10 years, the market will be much more expensive.
The big problem (IMO) with our housing market is that it takes too much time to get projects started, especially big affordable apartment complexes, because the established owners will engage in full-force NIMBY-ism warfare on any developers that dare to steal their precious sunlight or "visual pollution".
I don't live in the US, but I feel we share a lot of the similar problems when it comes to the housing market.
How many people straight out of school even want to buy a place?
Young people in general tend to be more mobile even if it's often within a general metro area. Buying a house (or even a condo) really limits your ability to easily move and, depending upon the type of housing, often is a significant time commitment as well.
Young people in general tend to be more mobile even if it's often within a general metro area. Buying a house (or even a condo) really limits your ability to easily move and, depending upon the type of housing, often is a significant time commitment as well.
It's def. a cultural thing here in Norway.
People are very much entrenched in the "Renting is money out the window" ideology, which gets repeated ad nauseam from you're old enough to move out.
Home ownership is also one of the big adulthood milestones here, because there's so much responsibility involved.
But I think the main (current) driver is ever growing cities, along with the ever growing housing prices. We've experienced a ton of centralization for the past decades, but it is especially now that people are starting to feel the heat of exploding rents and housing prices. FOMO is very real.
We also don't move that much around. Most people move away for college / university, then to a city or two for work - usually settling down fairly quick.
People are very much entrenched in the "Renting is money out the window" ideology, which gets repeated ad nauseam from you're old enough to move out.
Home ownership is also one of the big adulthood milestones here, because there's so much responsibility involved.
But I think the main (current) driver is ever growing cities, along with the ever growing housing prices. We've experienced a ton of centralization for the past decades, but it is especially now that people are starting to feel the heat of exploding rents and housing prices. FOMO is very real.
We also don't move that much around. Most people move away for college / university, then to a city or two for work - usually settling down fairly quick.
I assume the US is relatively more mobile. Also, the bigger US metros are quite large. Even if you limit yourself to individual metro areas like the Bay Area, DC, etc. a change in job could easily add 90 minutes to a commute even if you don't move to a new city.
To be clear, home ownership is often an adult milestone in the US as well. But, anecdotally, it's not something a lot of people really pursue for the first decade or so out of school--especially if they haven't gotten married.
To be clear, home ownership is often an adult milestone in the US as well. But, anecdotally, it's not something a lot of people really pursue for the first decade or so out of school--especially if they haven't gotten married.
In most housing markets, the cost of housing is at least somewhat similar to the dividend-discounted future net cost of rent. High rents and high home listing prices are usually connected. So if you don't want to buy a house, you probably want to rent and that's going to be seriously over-priced too.
Sure. But the comment I was responding to cited the difficulties of buying specifically like scraping together a deposit.
I wanted to, and did, buy as soon as I was able after graduating college. I admit to being an oddball, though. I hate moving and value the ability modify my living space without restriction (building codes notwithstanding) over location flexibility.
> They know that if they have to wait 5-10 years, the market will be much more expensive.
The "fear of missing out" seems reminiscent of a market nearing its peak, or minimally, plateauing. Home prices have more or less always gone up long-term, though it's been very gradual over long periods. 10% year-over-year gains don't continue unabated forever.
The "fear of missing out" seems reminiscent of a market nearing its peak, or minimally, plateauing. Home prices have more or less always gone up long-term, though it's been very gradual over long periods. 10% year-over-year gains don't continue unabated forever.
It's interesting, about 2 years ago Bay Area I was looking to hop in to the Bay Area housing market before it grew out of reach, but the housing prices were going up every month (so kept getting outbid because I was bidding based on recent sales), with double digit year over year increases.
I finally gave up and concluded that I had already missed out, and accepted not being able to afford housing. Not long after, prices plataeued, and have even cooled off somewhat over the past year, despite tight inventory and falling interest rates. I'm guessing there was a mini bubble due to a FOMO frenzy and now that the frenzy is over, prices are taking a respite from ballooning.
For the sake of the region, I hope prices have hit an equilibrium point and will stop outpacing inflation, although I'm going to hedge by buying in now.
I finally gave up and concluded that I had already missed out, and accepted not being able to afford housing. Not long after, prices plataeued, and have even cooled off somewhat over the past year, despite tight inventory and falling interest rates. I'm guessing there was a mini bubble due to a FOMO frenzy and now that the frenzy is over, prices are taking a respite from ballooning.
For the sake of the region, I hope prices have hit an equilibrium point and will stop outpacing inflation, although I'm going to hedge by buying in now.
I'd say the fear is rational if its nearing only a plateau, wouldn't you? Housing prices are already many multiples higher of the median wage than they were 15-20 years ago I believe (due to wage stagnation).
That's just in a few places with crazy house prices.
Generally, the situation isn't like that. For example, in my location the median house prices are less than 3x the median household income.
Generally, the situation isn't like that. For example, in my location the median house prices are less than 3x the median household income.
There are plenty of rich foreigners who would be happy to buy US housing.
The claim here is confounded by overall decline in marriage rates. If you look at people living with a partner the numbers are not as stark though an increase in living with parents is still there.
The decline of marriage rate may not be a confounder. Young people live with their parents because of the lack of financial stability and they are not good marriage prospects because of the lack of financial stability.
Eh, if you aren't married, why bother getting your own place? Especially after living away at college for 4+ years, it's not so bad to come back home for a while.
[deleted]
Having pride in being a self sufficient adult is one benefit of moving away from home.
Going away to college is a halfway point. There is a whole infrastructure to help you with the transition.
Moving out entirely on your own is a big step. You learn to take care of yourself and at least for me, there was a lot of pride in being able to say “This is my own life and I can take care of myself”.
Going away to college is a halfway point. There is a whole infrastructure to help you with the transition.
Moving out entirely on your own is a big step. You learn to take care of yourself and at least for me, there was a lot of pride in being able to say “This is my own life and I can take care of myself”.
No one is really self sufficient. Unless you live in the woods, that's just an illusion. You're just dependent on people other than your family.
Multi-generation housing has been the default throughout most of history, and is still common in many parts of the world. Being an adult and taking on extra responsibilities is orthogonal to whether or not you live in a multi-generational household.
Multi-generation housing has been the default throughout most of history, and is still common in many parts of the world. Being an adult and taking on extra responsibilities is orthogonal to whether or not you live in a multi-generational household.
No true Scotsman. Sure, no one is truly self-diffident, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a big difference between living on your own or living in your mom’s basement.
And yes, multi-generational living was very common in the past, but so was having 5+ children. That doesn’t necessarily make it a better choice.
And yes, multi-generational living was very common in the past, but so was having 5+ children. That doesn’t necessarily make it a better choice.
No true Scotsman isn't even remotely relevant.
>that doesn’t mean there isn’t a big difference between living on your own or living in your mom’s basement.
Where you live really says nothing about your level of responsibility or self-reliance. I know people who moved out when they were 18, but still depend on their parents for financial support, and I know people living at home who's parents depend on them for financial support.
I know people who live with their families who can grow a significant portion of their own food, and people who live alone who would starve if DoorDash shut down.
And I know people who live with their parents who have children of their own to care for, and people who live alone who have carefully orchestrated their lives to avoid any kind of responsibility to other people.
>And yes, multi-generational living was very common in the past, but so was having 5+ children. That doesn’t necessarily make it a better choice.
Not necessarily, but the converse is also true.
You move out because you desire freedom. You wanted something, so you bought it. Don't frame it as something noble, or inherently superior.
>that doesn’t mean there isn’t a big difference between living on your own or living in your mom’s basement.
Where you live really says nothing about your level of responsibility or self-reliance. I know people who moved out when they were 18, but still depend on their parents for financial support, and I know people living at home who's parents depend on them for financial support.
I know people who live with their families who can grow a significant portion of their own food, and people who live alone who would starve if DoorDash shut down.
And I know people who live with their parents who have children of their own to care for, and people who live alone who have carefully orchestrated their lives to avoid any kind of responsibility to other people.
>And yes, multi-generational living was very common in the past, but so was having 5+ children. That doesn’t necessarily make it a better choice.
Not necessarily, but the converse is also true.
You move out because you desire freedom. You wanted something, so you bought it. Don't frame it as something noble, or inherently superior.
I reject the idea that moving away from home is a necessary step to becoming a self sufficient adult. You don't have to move out to start taking care of yourself - you just have to pull your own weight, to contribute equally to bills and upkeep without having to be asked. Sure it's easy to fall into old routines, but I would argue that if you can't be independent while living with others then you really aren't independent.
I live away from my parents, but that was a choice of practicality - the amount of money I make by doing so vastly outstrips the amount I would save by living at home.
I live away from my parents, but that was a choice of practicality - the amount of money I make by doing so vastly outstrips the amount I would save by living at home.
Paying rent and cleaning the apartment are not really that impressive when they're happening in the parents' home.
Of course you can reject the idea, but you'll find that you'll also be rejected more often by potential romantic partners.
Of course you can reject the idea, but you'll find that you'll also be rejected more often by potential romantic partners.
I don’t disagree. I know people who still live at home because they have no choice - their family needs help and can’t get it any other way.
But I also know a few folks who live at home because it’s just easier. No pesky mortgage to deal with, clothes always get washed, meals cooked, etc.
But I also know a few folks who live at home because it’s just easier. No pesky mortgage to deal with, clothes always get washed, meals cooked, etc.
It depends on how thing the walls are and how tolerant parents are of overnight guests. I do wish the USA would have a more Finnish attitude in that regard. Often times they're fine with their kids spending the night at a lover's house even during high school.
I wonder if the US will start building love hotels like they have in Japan so that young couples have a place away from home they can spend intimate time together away from family.
The question is what the rate of single young people living on their own is doing. That's why the decline in marriage rate is a confounder.
Does marriage increase financial stability? My personal bias says yes but I may be incorrect on that.
According to Elizabeth Warren's book "The Two Income Trap", two income households are less financially stable because you've doubled the odds that someone in the household will become unemployed. Unless you live on one income and bank the other, having a lifestyle that depends on two incomes is less stable than depending on just one income. Of course, you don't have to be married to be a two income household and spouses who don't work outside the home exist but the default for married coupled does seem to be both work fulltime, which is financially less stable than having just one spouse working.
I don't understand how that makes sense.
It doubles the probability of one person losing his job, but it halves the consequences of it.
It makes the probability of losing all income a lot lower.
It doubles the probability of one person losing his job, but it halves the consequences of it.
It makes the probability of losing all income a lot lower.
It doesn't increase financial stability, it's a sign that you've achieved it. Though, a married man may seem more hirable to a company, since they can presume he needs the income to support not only himself, but his family.
I don't see why marriage doesn't increase financial stability. Marriage is basically getting an incredibly efficient roommate. A spouse is a roommate that is fine with sharing a bedroom, a bathroom, can give you insurance, lower your taxes, etc.
and each day a RNG fires off from 1->10000 and if it hits in the target range, you lose half your assets lol
A pre-nup costs a few grand, just do that if you're concerned.
Just make sure you marry somebody with more assets than yourself, then this is not a problem.
Intergenerational housing is the historical norm. It seems the 20th century was a flash in the pan, if income and wealth inequality on top of social changes have led us here. Do the wealthy care about this and declining birth rates due to lower resources and strained youth? They control policy and there's no policy promoting improvements on this front except from optimistic primary candidates.
I just don't see this changing. I'm 30 and over half of my friends spent at least 2 years at home in their 20s. Every single time the issue was finances, they needed cheap digs as their debt and low income disallowed renting.
I just don't see this changing. I'm 30 and over half of my friends spent at least 2 years at home in their 20s. Every single time the issue was finances, they needed cheap digs as their debt and low income disallowed renting.
Intergenerational housing doesn't work for people who end up living in a different city than there parents or grandparents due to work. And a large portion of the population is in that situation. I grew up in the rural mid-west. Good luck working on robotics there. I had to move to a city to get the resources I needed to do the work I want. However that city also happens to have no housing and exorbitant rent. With rent eating up 30% of my income, taxes the other 30%, the path to saving for a small home in the city puts me a decade, if not decades behind where the previous generation began to set-up there homes.
Hence it’s very important to be born to the right parents.
Submitted URL was https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/reconfiguring-the-... but is down. Cached copy: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?ei=MUSWXbr9Lpb6....
In the meantime we switched the URL above to a news article about the report.
Edit: site seems back up now, so switched back to the original from https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/report-young-adults-m....
In the meantime we switched the URL above to a news article about the report.
Edit: site seems back up now, so switched back to the original from https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/report-young-adults-m....
Even though the idea kind of disgusts me, I wish companies like Facebook, Apple, Google, etc would experiment with building new campuses in the middle of nowhere as “planned cities” complete with airports connecting to regional hubs, housing, good public transportation, etc. Employees could take home more of their salaries. The only thing disgusting me more is how expensive Bay Area rent and property are, and how people who moved here long ago and didn’t contribute to the tech boom get to cannibalize our incomes by restricting housing supply.
This would also relieve housing pressure in the Bay Area, and let native kids not in the tech industry maybe one day move into their own places without waiting for their parents to die.
This would also relieve housing pressure in the Bay Area, and let native kids not in the tech industry maybe one day move into their own places without waiting for their parents to die.
Sorry, your idea is lunacy, and here's why:
>Employees could take home more of their salaries.
That's not how it works. These companies would pay much lower salaries, with the justification that "the cost of living is much lower". We already see this whenever companies have multiple locations, with any of those locations in low-CoL areas. They'll push employees to relocate to the cheap place, but the employees don't get to keep those high salaries.
>Employees could take home more of their salaries.
That's not how it works. These companies would pay much lower salaries, with the justification that "the cost of living is much lower". We already see this whenever companies have multiple locations, with any of those locations in low-CoL areas. They'll push employees to relocate to the cheap place, but the employees don't get to keep those high salaries.
We’ll see, since these employers are near the top of the pay scale usually they are pretty competitive with pay to attract employees. I know for a lot of them, they don’t pay that much lower (maybe 10%) even for offices in low CoL areas
For businesses in general, I agree. But there’s a reason I listed these particular ones
For businesses in general, I agree. But there’s a reason I listed these particular ones
Pay is not based on the cost of living but on the area job market. These can have a relationship but are not the same. London is an example of an expensive city where software engineering wages are relatively low. If there's robust competition and a shortage of people, the salaries will be high.
>If there's robust competition and a shortage of people, the salaries will be high.
Yes, but if some software corp builds a campus in the middle of nowhere, there won't be robust competition, obviously. So the salaries are going to be terrible. The only reason the corporation would do this is to save money, so they're not going to offer salaries similar to the high-CoL location; doing so would cost them more money (paying for building the new campus, the huge administrative cost of opening and staffing this location and getting it productive, plus the lack of savings in salaries). The whole idea doesn't make any sense at all. If you look at the way companies operate, they never do this, except for manufacturing (where they're looking for low-skilled workers they can train). For high-skilled knowledge workers, they always go where the workers are.
Yes, but if some software corp builds a campus in the middle of nowhere, there won't be robust competition, obviously. So the salaries are going to be terrible. The only reason the corporation would do this is to save money, so they're not going to offer salaries similar to the high-CoL location; doing so would cost them more money (paying for building the new campus, the huge administrative cost of opening and staffing this location and getting it productive, plus the lack of savings in salaries). The whole idea doesn't make any sense at all. If you look at the way companies operate, they never do this, except for manufacturing (where they're looking for low-skilled workers they can train). For high-skilled knowledge workers, they always go where the workers are.
This would mean that employees would have to be either single or have stay at home spouse willing to trail. In particular, with workforce of Facebook, Apple, Google being heavily tilted toward males, most of their young employees would have no chance of finding a mate due to basically math and demographics.
Which means that while they would not be living with parents, they would not be living with spouses either.
Which means that while they would not be living with parents, they would not be living with spouses either.
This is a good point, maybe these company towns could be on the outskirts of low COL cities to balance this issue. That way you could meet people outside of the company and spouses/partners could get local jobs
Works pretty well for Walmart!
Sounds like EPCOT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epcot#1960s:_Experimental_conc...
Its because it doesn't make sense to move out, the real estate markets stagnation makes taking out a huge loan almost feel like indentured servitude.
why? Because it feels like your always working to pay off the landlord or the bank just so you can have somewhere to sleep. Even if you own it outright, property and taxes are 10k/y, now your paying $1k/m just to have a place to sleep before you can even spend money and work for the things that you want. The worst of it, is as prices go up there should be a huge push to build more to balance the market, but than you have all these huge artificial barriers to entry to build preventing that from happening.
So it makes sense to try to live with parents, make enough money to buy your house outright so at least than you have a chance to get out from indentured servitude.
To be honest most of us are just hoping the real estate market collapses, or these barriers to entry are overcome so that prices can drop because we are not willing to pay these prices which amount to servitude. Our refusal for this type of "life" is what causes a decreased in birth rates and growth in general in the economy.
why? Because it feels like your always working to pay off the landlord or the bank just so you can have somewhere to sleep. Even if you own it outright, property and taxes are 10k/y, now your paying $1k/m just to have a place to sleep before you can even spend money and work for the things that you want. The worst of it, is as prices go up there should be a huge push to build more to balance the market, but than you have all these huge artificial barriers to entry to build preventing that from happening.
So it makes sense to try to live with parents, make enough money to buy your house outright so at least than you have a chance to get out from indentured servitude.
To be honest most of us are just hoping the real estate market collapses, or these barriers to entry are overcome so that prices can drop because we are not willing to pay these prices which amount to servitude. Our refusal for this type of "life" is what causes a decreased in birth rates and growth in general in the economy.
You don’t think that 40 years ago people did the same? I remember my father buying a house for $30,000 (wow! So lucky) only to learn his home payment was over 50% of his take-home pay (oh, not so lucky).
When my dad grew up (in Washington) he was able to pay his college tuition in full and save for a downpayment on his home by working in the kitchen at the university. Nowadays, if you went to University full time and then purchased a house out of college with your only income being a minor kitchen job at whatever school you attended you'd likely have $100k+ of debt
Desirability of housing in particular cities changes over time.
Post college I lived in a small town in Michigan and saved up a down payment for a house in 2 years making less than $50k.
You can still do it, but not in the most desirable US cities.
Post college I lived in a small town in Michigan and saved up a down payment for a house in 2 years making less than $50k.
You can still do it, but not in the most desirable US cities.
I would be super stoked if I could find a house to buy in SoCal and only have to spend 50% of my income!
The mortgage price as a ratio to median income has gone up since then (nearly doubled iirc).
If I could buy a house for 30k I would be over the moon.
Is this such a bad thing? In places like Japan and Hawaii this has been a common practice for a long time. As long as the younger generation is contributing to the household in someway (working, helping out around the house or helping to provide care for younger or elderly family members etc) and not living in the basement and playing video games 24-7, it seems like a far better arrangement. Talk to almost any elderly people living alone and you'll find they are terribly lonely, and that seems to be a complaint with a lot of Millennials as well. If you have no plans to marry and start a family of your own in the near future why not live with you parents?
There's a difference between living with your parents because it's more practical and living with your parents because it's all you can afford. It's fine to create a society that values taking care of parents as they age, but not okay to create one where parents are taken care of because their children have no other choice. I also have a hard time calling the parents of a 26-year-old "elderly." Young adults today don't hate their parents, they just want the same opportunities they had.
I'm a recent empty-nester, my kids are all in their late teens/early twenties, I wouldn't count myself as elderly either. I wouldn't mind at all if one or more of my kids moved back in with us long term, provided that they helped around the house and preferably were employed in some manner and could pay a bit of rent. I think where people have problems is when adult children are living at home and not working and are not really contributing members of the household. Heck I'd even be willing to support an adult child financially for quit a while if they were willing to really help with household tasks, like cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, yard work etc. I'm not interested in supporting an adult child that just wants to do nothing all day and be taken care of like they are 10 years old the rest of their life, and that seems to be a common occurrence these days as well.
I do think it's sad that modern society has kind of dismantled the extended family. That it's become such a faux pas to have multiple generations living under the same roof. Instead it somehow makes sense to leave our small children with complete strangers for most of the day and have our young adults living alone in apartments scarcely bigger than a box a continent away in the name of starting careers. I honestly think we are overdue for a reversal in some of these trends.
I do think it's sad that modern society has kind of dismantled the extended family. That it's become such a faux pas to have multiple generations living under the same roof. Instead it somehow makes sense to leave our small children with complete strangers for most of the day and have our young adults living alone in apartments scarcely bigger than a box a continent away in the name of starting careers. I honestly think we are overdue for a reversal in some of these trends.
My interpretation (which could be completely wrong) is that people perceive a difference between "living with your parents" and "your parents living with you".
I think it's a matter of who is the head of the household (i.e. the person who is pulling the most weight regarding the financial stability of the household). So "young adults living with their parents" is interpreted as "young adults not becoming functioning members of society"
That said, I agree pretty much entirely with your comment.
I think it's a matter of who is the head of the household (i.e. the person who is pulling the most weight regarding the financial stability of the household). So "young adults living with their parents" is interpreted as "young adults not becoming functioning members of society"
That said, I agree pretty much entirely with your comment.
One of the myriad reasons I'm running for office here in San Francisco. We've created a completely broken system that's akin to generational theft by boomers from their own children. Time to build more housing. buss2020.org
Good luck! SFers aren’t interested in more housing. That’s painfully apparent by who they re-elect each time.
A bit misleading no? The percentage of people living "with spouse" has been cannibalized by the people living "with partner".
The missing number here is how many married people live with their parents? In my experience that seems to be rising. I live in an area with lots of people married before 26 (Utah), but a significant amount of my married friends under 26 live with one of their parents.
Here's the reddit post, since the website seems to be crashing.
https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/dchx6y/in_...
Here's the author's source data:
https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/dchx6y/in_...
https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/dchx6y/in_...
Here's the author's source data:
https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/dchx6y/in_...
Young adults are also more likely to have parents than spouses.
This doesn't seem so surprising. The chart shows in 1968, about 80% of 26 year olds lived with a spouse. Today, even if every married 26 year old lived with their spouse, we'd only hit about 32% of 26 year olds.
They don't group people living with their unmarried partner with people living with a spouse.
Based on their chart, 23 is the age at which most people no longer live with their parents.
This doesn't seem so surprising. The chart shows in 1968, about 80% of 26 year olds lived with a spouse. Today, even if every married 26 year old lived with their spouse, we'd only hit about 32% of 26 year olds.
They don't group people living with their unmarried partner with people living with a spouse.
Based on their chart, 23 is the age at which most people no longer live with their parents.
> They don't group people living with their unmarried partner with people living with a spouse?
Isn't this number pretty insignificantly small? Also, not being married severely complicates things like joint ownership and sharing an income, precisely the sorts of things that make buying a house easier.
Isn't this number pretty insignificantly small? Also, not being married severely complicates things like joint ownership and sharing an income, precisely the sorts of things that make buying a house easier.
It's shown in the article and it's not small at all. It's the 3rd largest group after parents and spouse. 24% live with a spouse and 17% with a partner.
Goodness gracious, I had no idea twenty-four percent of young people found it acceptable to shack up and live in sin. It is no wonder we have such cultural problems today, nor is it any wonder they are so rapidly increasing.
That said, see my above comments about why you cannot treat married people amd those people the same.
That said, see my above comments about why you cannot treat married people amd those people the same.
I'm guessing this is a religious view (Christian or Muslim maybe?).
Where I'm from it's both common and normal for people to never marry their lifelong partner and even raise a family together.
Where I'm from it's both common and normal for people to never marry their lifelong partner and even raise a family together.
It is somewhat religious, but more in the sense that religion is important for a society. Where are you from, if I might ask? I've never heard of this idea of a "partner" until very recently (let alone fathering children out of wedlock), and this has historically been the case in America. Dropping religion from main-stream life and such a significant loss of public morality cannot be good for a society.
Quebec. There are two main cultures here: francophone (the majority) and anglophone. Among francophone couples, about 80% aren't married.
There's no real discernible difference here between an unmarried couple and a married one. They act the same. You wouldn't be able to tell which they were unless they told you.
Quebec used to be religiously catholic. However, the church kept the people down and kept them poor and in the early 60s, the people rebelled against the church and secularized. Quebec today isn't perfect (no place is), but things are much better now than they were under the catholic church.
There's no real discernible difference here between an unmarried couple and a married one. They act the same. You wouldn't be able to tell which they were unless they told you.
Quebec used to be religiously catholic. However, the church kept the people down and kept them poor and in the early 60s, the people rebelled against the church and secularized. Quebec today isn't perfect (no place is), but things are much better now than they were under the catholic church.
Interesting; thanks for the information. However, note that you mentioned Quebec stayed mostly monogamous over the long term. In America, we're already seeing that this is not the case. Society at large seems to be following the trends best exhibited by dating sites: top 80% women competing for top 20% men, and bottom 80% of men competing for bottom 20% of women. Combine this with the fact that in a few years women will have 70% or so of the masters' degrees, and this will further draw them to that 20-30% of men. Such a situation leads to a lot of very angry incels, which is a recipe for societal destabilization. The typical solution has been a war to kill of a bunch of those, unless a plague did it first.
Personally, I think the government ought not to enforce religion or morality. However, it can be very important for society to do so.
Personally, I think the government ought not to enforce religion or morality. However, it can be very important for society to do so.
Isn’t this mainly because young adults are much less likely to be married?
Hard to live with your spouse if you’re not even married.
What’s actually surprising to me is that 80% of 26 years olds were married 50 years ago!
Hard to live with your spouse if you’re not even married.
What’s actually surprising to me is that 80% of 26 years olds were married 50 years ago!
The issue with a housing crunch and run away rents is that due to our economic system, it’s kind of too big to fail.
If rents and mortgages are a certain price, people keep taking out mortgages for that price with the assumption that prices won’t go down. So there is a huge portion of people and loans whose economic situation is dependent on rents and housing prices not going down. If enough people buy into a delusion with high risk to ruin, it’s not longer a delusion
Let’s say over the course of 5 years rents decreased by half in the Bay Area. The real estate market would also probably decrease by about half. Suddenly tons of people are underwater on their loans, both regular homeowners and many investors who are no longer able to cover their loans with the market rent. That’s bad for banks and a huge portion of the populace, and could cause a huge economic meltdown. So it’s politically untenable.
The only actual solutions I can think of are to never let housing supply become an issue, let inflation take care of it (if people’s income increases due to inflation, and housing prices stay the same, it prevents homeowner/investor insolvency while effectively reducing rent), or just wait for some big natural disaster. So hopefully the big one comes soon and gives us a chance to rethink how we build
If rents and mortgages are a certain price, people keep taking out mortgages for that price with the assumption that prices won’t go down. So there is a huge portion of people and loans whose economic situation is dependent on rents and housing prices not going down. If enough people buy into a delusion with high risk to ruin, it’s not longer a delusion
Let’s say over the course of 5 years rents decreased by half in the Bay Area. The real estate market would also probably decrease by about half. Suddenly tons of people are underwater on their loans, both regular homeowners and many investors who are no longer able to cover their loans with the market rent. That’s bad for banks and a huge portion of the populace, and could cause a huge economic meltdown. So it’s politically untenable.
The only actual solutions I can think of are to never let housing supply become an issue, let inflation take care of it (if people’s income increases due to inflation, and housing prices stay the same, it prevents homeowner/investor insolvency while effectively reducing rent), or just wait for some big natural disaster. So hopefully the big one comes soon and gives us a chance to rethink how we build
Most people are long-term owners. While I don't disagree that some people would experience a capital loss, you have to realize that only a small portion of the housing supply turns over annually. The percentage of people underwater may not be as high as you think. It prices fell by half, that would be all Bay Area homes sold after 2012. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SFXRSA
Multi-generational homes are what we should really be doing as a society anyway. It's more efficient economically and environmentally. The benefits are significant in so many ways.
You don't get to choose your parents. You choose your friends, your career, etc. If economic pressure means you can't choose where you live, you can be left miserable or abused with no way out. I'd rather see a diversity of housing options ranging from very environmentally efficient dense apartments to unsustainable mcmansions than trapping people in often terrible circumstances.
It's also career limiting and traps your kids into a life they may not want.
There is something to be said for more tribal-esque living. If you live with close relatives, you can probably drastically reduce the amount of bills, mortgages, babysitters / caregivers, and cars that everyone pays for, at the cost of having to buy a larger house potentially.
The problem is that, while there is now a large stock of massively oversized residences to have large families occupy, said residences are built around an expectation of extravagance that makes them far removed from commercial, business, or even other residential areas. They are isolated by design and extraordinarily expensive to maintain both publicly and privately.
If that square footage was simply placed somewhere with reasonable local access to services it would be less concerning how disastrous the housing and property markets are, but the McMansions are going to enter total obsolescence and abandonment when their current residents want to downsize and nobody can afford to live there.
If that square footage was simply placed somewhere with reasonable local access to services it would be less concerning how disastrous the housing and property markets are, but the McMansions are going to enter total obsolescence and abandonment when their current residents want to downsize and nobody can afford to live there.
The sorry state of the housing market is probably the most to blame. In decades past people could get starter homes much closer to high-paying jobs. Now you have to suffer through a very long commute.
Well, the housing market is a mess in pretty much all first-world countries, right? There's also the fact that less and less young people are getting married, favoring long-term partnerships without any ceremonies instead. Top it off with wages rising slowly, disproportionate to the speed at which housing costs climb.
I don't have kids and likely never will but I won't be surprised if my mates' children will have to live with them until they turn 30 at least. And those are all reasonably steady families with good incomes.
I don't have kids and likely never will but I won't be surprised if my mates' children will have to live with them until they turn 30 at least. And those are all reasonably steady families with good incomes.
At this point finding a job in any major EU city is easier than finding housing which is not teporary housing paid per night. Taking a mental shortcut, the housing market invalidates the EU free movement of workers. If getting through the interview processes is tiring enough already, so many ways one can get scammed, abused, cheated, exploited by all kind of dodgy landlords makes he whole deal just not worth it.
Why are all western societies like this? East Asia doesn't hesitate to build dense apartments from Jakarta to Seoul. I don't buy the "cultural homogeneity peaceful society" argument because the amount of cultural diversity across the half the human population living in that area is colossal.
But without fail almost everywhere in the Americas and Europe is structurally against density in any form and systemically fights it.
But without fail almost everywhere in the Americas and Europe is structurally against density in any form and systemically fights it.
Easy, I live in Western Europe and they absolutely hate high density living as it's seen as eye-sore sardine housing for the poor and lower class and nobody wants to live in or around such buildings/neighborhoods as it'll turn into slums so it's a real hot potato.
It might be because west can (or could) afford to prefer low density (for a portion of people significant enough to affect laws and zoning).
All those other places never could afford suburbs.
All those other places never could afford suburbs.
There's also this quirky thought many medium-sized cities in Europe have: They want to upsides of being a "big city", but they don't want to identify as a "big city".
This means: no big ugly blocks, skyscrapers, etc. People want to have spacious homes and living areas, and beautiful neighborhoods.
They basically want to be suburbs, but 5 min walk from everything important, and max 30 min drive from work.
This means: no big ugly blocks, skyscrapers, etc. People want to have spacious homes and living areas, and beautiful neighborhoods.
They basically want to be suburbs, but 5 min walk from everything important, and max 30 min drive from work.
Which European medium-sized city are you referring to?
I also live in a one that's quite wealthy and constantly expanding by engulfing nearby suburbs and you're right that people there want everything from suburban lifestyle with city perks but the huge downside is the commute times since the city got so wide and there's no underground, if you want to get from on side to another you're in for some hour+ commutes which in a big city would take 20 min by underground. Basically if you don't live close to your job, you're kinda screwed.
Students love it since if you live in the city center you can commute by bike or foot anywhere important within minutes, but as a working adult, the work commutes are killer since most tech companies can't afford inner city rents which are mostly taken by cafes, fashion shops, architects, doctors, lawyers, banks and real estate agencies.
I also live in a one that's quite wealthy and constantly expanding by engulfing nearby suburbs and you're right that people there want everything from suburban lifestyle with city perks but the huge downside is the commute times since the city got so wide and there's no underground, if you want to get from on side to another you're in for some hour+ commutes which in a big city would take 20 min by underground. Basically if you don't live close to your job, you're kinda screwed.
Students love it since if you live in the city center you can commute by bike or foot anywhere important within minutes, but as a working adult, the work commutes are killer since most tech companies can't afford inner city rents which are mostly taken by cafes, fashion shops, architects, doctors, lawyers, banks and real estate agencies.
If birth rates decline and immigration is stymied, the United States is going to find itself in an extremely difficult position with entitlement programs, which largely depend on the working population being as large, or larger, than the retired population, for adequate funding.
This thinking is counter to acknowledging the modern automation revolution. Wealth and productivity are largely becoming detached from people, and as such the sources of revenue western nations use to fund entitlements wouldn't be going to go away as people age out of hard labor years if the tax burden was on the corporate entities rather than individual income / social security / etc taxes.
The money is still there and will likely not go anywhere except into fewer hands and pockets. Its up to societies to actually adjust their tax model to curtail it.
The money is still there and will likely not go anywhere except into fewer hands and pockets. Its up to societies to actually adjust their tax model to curtail it.
Productivity gains are slowing down at the developed world (and the developing one too). It's a widely discussed phenomenon on economics cycles, and mostly people seem to have no idea why that is happening.
There's a nice US graph here: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/productivity#hist...
An OECD study that goes up to 2005: http://www.oecd.org/employment/labour-stats/41354425.pdf
There's a nice US graph here: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/productivity#hist...
An OECD study that goes up to 2005: http://www.oecd.org/employment/labour-stats/41354425.pdf
>Productivity gains are slowing down at the developed world (and the developing one too). It's a widely discussed phenomenon on economics cycles, and mostly people seem to have no idea why that is happening.
I moved to western Europe and realized why. Millennials there don't want to take part in the competitive rat race to be productive as their boomer parents have bought plenty of properties when real estate was cheap and salaries were high enough that even a factory worker in the 70's could afford a large apartment. They will later inherit said properties so they feel no pressure to get into high stress jobs since they are basically taken care of for life. So why bother?
The only people I know who are constantly grinding and hustling here are immigrants who don't own any real estate so they're constantly working to afford to get on the property ladder.
I moved to western Europe and realized why. Millennials there don't want to take part in the competitive rat race to be productive as their boomer parents have bought plenty of properties when real estate was cheap and salaries were high enough that even a factory worker in the 70's could afford a large apartment. They will later inherit said properties so they feel no pressure to get into high stress jobs since they are basically taken care of for life. So why bother?
The only people I know who are constantly grinding and hustling here are immigrants who don't own any real estate so they're constantly working to afford to get on the property ladder.
Ok... Do you realize that productivity has no relation with how hard one works, don't you?
Up until now, the US has largely bucked this trend due to our above average immigration rates. The worst hit developed nation? Japan, which happens to have the most restrictive immigration policies. We limit immigration at our own peril.
If?
"The United States’ birthrate fell for a fourth consecutive year in 2018, bringing the number of people born in the country to its lowest level in 32 years"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/us/us-birthrate-decrease....
I don't think I need a citation to support the claim that the US is also currently trying to stymie immigration.
"The United States’ birthrate fell for a fourth consecutive year in 2018, bringing the number of people born in the country to its lowest level in 32 years"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/us/us-birthrate-decrease....
I don't think I need a citation to support the claim that the US is also currently trying to stymie immigration.
greatestdana(1)
This fact is slightly misleadin, because the data shows that there are more people living with a spouse _or_ a partner than with parents. So there seem to be two reasons for these figures: a larger fraction of people living with parents and less (or later) weddings.
Although I agree that the primary causes identified in this thread are far from ideal, I also think there is nothing wrong with multigenerational housing.
There is an interesting map presentation of similar data from 2014: https://census.socialexplorer.com/young-adults/#/
It's interesting to see different trends between young adults in different decades.
New generations tend to living with parents more often, they are more educated, but earn less in average.
It's interesting to see different trends between young adults in different decades.
New generations tend to living with parents more often, they are more educated, but earn less in average.
Objectively, I don’t see a problem with this. It makes perfect sense to pool your resources and live with family until you get your own family. I’m not sure how much longer I would have lived at home if I hadn’t moved out of town for work the week after graduating from college.
[deleted]
My kids haven't come home, but they keep sending all their stuff to my house every time they move.
At their age, I just didn't have the stuff they have. I couldn't afford things like furniture, a TV, crates of dishes, or boxes of clothing. I had student debt to pay off, enough clothes to last between laundries without going too rank, and a set of pots and pans that were good enough to eat out of. When I moved, I'd share a borrowed station wagon with a friend to move all out stuff in one trip.
I only just earned my empty nest. If one of my kids comes back for a "long term visit", they'll get tired of being questioned on when they're moving back to their own place.
At their age, I just didn't have the stuff they have. I couldn't afford things like furniture, a TV, crates of dishes, or boxes of clothing. I had student debt to pay off, enough clothes to last between laundries without going too rank, and a set of pots and pans that were good enough to eat out of. When I moved, I'd share a borrowed station wagon with a friend to move all out stuff in one trip.
I only just earned my empty nest. If one of my kids comes back for a "long term visit", they'll get tired of being questioned on when they're moving back to their own place.
It's a fair point, but a lot of stuff these days is cheaper than it used to be. Consider Dollarama or Dollar Tree. You can outfit a kitchen with a full set of dishes and utensils and everything else for $50. TVs and other things are super cheap and sometimes free, as well.
When housing prices are nearly untenable for middle age adults, is it a surprise that young adults stay home longer?
For a modern person getting married has few questionable benefits and a lot of obvious drawbacks.
Totally understandable.
Totally understandable.
At least that our government wants!
deevolution(1)
[deleted]
It's the economy, to point out the obvious.
As a young person it legitimately angers me that even despite being an extremely fortunate person working a job that makes good money and with no debt I still won't be able to own a house until I'm 24 which makes me wonder 'how can anyone hope to raise get married and raise a family under these conditions?'
Same but until I'm 40
The cost of housing and rent outpace inflation by a wide margin and cost considerably more than they did in the past. The age of the typical home buyer has increased 10-20 years in the last 40 years. Living costs more now than it did 40 years ago. It's not such a surprise then that fewer are able to achieve, or are achieving later in life, what used to be very common life milestones.