Comment by zer00eyz
11 hours ago
Im getting sick of hearing about the "housing problem".
As a percentage, how big do you think the home ownership problem is? Guess: 10? 15?
If I told you that home ownership is un-moveable would you believe me? That the percentage is less that 6 from peak to trough?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
63 percent of US households owned the home they lived in in 1960, we peaked around 2008 at 69 percent and are about 65 today.
Home ownership is functionally an un-moveable number.
But the housing problems, corporate ownership, rent prices, young people can't afford houses....
These things aren't housing problems. They are social ones.
First, we are using housing much differently: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/06/more-than-a-q... -- Lots of us are living alone, including the old. The boomers aren't moving in with the kids, or to homes, or shacking up together (the Golden Girls is a quaint bit of history that does not happen today). This has created a massive amount of pressure on the housing stock we have.
And that Corporate ownership problem: It is hyper local (Atlanta, Phoenix, Tampa are major markets). One would think that these things being a local issue would have local resolutions. Except the biggest predictor of voting is "home ownership" and the biggest predictor of turn out is "anything that harms the price of homes". There is simply no political will locally to change this.
But the bulk of Investor Owned Properties aren't corporate, they are people with 2nd homes. These aren't "places people could live" they are homes in markets that only exist as tourist destinations. The condo in Florida for snow birds, The house at the beach, by the lake or in the mountains for a weekend getaway.
One of the largest factors in run away cost is where the money is. I hate to say this but that older generation that isn't moving in with kids, or shacking up like golden girls... they have ALL the cash. You don't have to believe me but as these people pass things will change and it has a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wealth_Transfer
And yes, lack of mobility, the missing middle, zoning (back to that pesky voting things contribute) aren't helping. And so do tenants rights (the parts of these that helped end shared living situations from house mates to boarding houses).
Do we have a housing problem, Yes. The real fixes are going to be unpopular because the facts are in conflict with how people feel
> 63 percent of US households owned the home they lived in in 1960
Wouldn’t measuring dynamics of home ownership using a unit “households” cause all sorts of problems? Consider two people who would get married and become a “households” except they’re too poor to live together so they each cohabitate with their parents. Every household in this example that owned a house in 1960 (the two sets of parents) still does, but the example shows a pretty serious housing problem.
> Wouldn’t measuring dynamics of home ownership using a unit “households” cause all sorts of problems?
I had the same impression at first as well. But a household is a household is a household. That massive increase in people living alone follows the same 60/40 split on ownership that more "traditional" married couples would.
The affordability of housing has changed since the 60's, 70's and 80's. And it's what your intuition is picking up on. And it does relate to what is a household, but not because it's a poor measure but because the housing stock we have no longer matches how we use housing.
If you go back to 1985, the boomers were in their prime years and housing was much more affordable than today. The greatest generation was dying off, and in their golden years they lived together (The literal plot of golden girls), in homes or moved in with kids.
The boomers are NOT doing that. They are occupying multi bedroom housing stock, as couples or alone. This has created much of their wealth and lots of price pressure on younger generations. The millennials will tell you "housing was worse for them" and it was: the two large cohorts competing for the limited supply, and one was deeply entrenched already.
Do note that boomers aren't the only ones "living alone more" its a fairly equal distribution but they have the first mover advantage, historic pricing advantage, and tend to be the ones occupying multi bedroom housing alone creating the utilization pressure.
And the Golden Girls type living situations are unviable today for legal reasons. Overly broad tenants rights have killed the concept of co-habitation (roomates/housemates) turning 2,3, and 4 bedroom houses into single family homes, and zoning + tenants rights have finished off the boarding house (there might be hand full left in the US, this was the plot of another 80's tv series).
Telling The boomers to move in with the millennials is going to be massively unpopular with both groups. Telling renters that "you get less rights" is going to be politically impossible (even if it is only for 'housemates' situations). Death or a major change to Americans political will are the only fixes that we are going to see.
Overly broad tenants rights have killed the concept of co-habitation (roomates/housemates)
how so? in austria/germany this kind of living is very common for students. and we have way more tenant rights than the US. even in the US i lived like that.
i don't see what tenant rights have anything to do with that.
1 reply →
Great Wealth Transfer is going to be big. Because of step-up in basis, best time to sell is after you pass on property to child. Low or zero cap gains.