Comment by tsunamifury

Irelands wasn't until the early 2000's.

While the house isn't producing, it is expense reducing, and that works out to be the same thing. Assuming that the house is paid for, of course, if your net worth is really only $300K, odds are you don't have the house paid for either: social Security is the bulk of your income, which, it's enough to live on, but it isn't a life of luxury.

In some countries, imputed rent used to be taxable income. If you owned your home, you basically calculated the market rent for a similar home, subtracted your expenses, and paid taxes for the rest. It was one of those policies economists considered justified (because it made the choice between owning and renting tax neutral) but the general public didn't.

Those times are gone, but the theoretical justification that makes homes income-producting assets remains.

If you’ve got a paid-off house, some savings, social security or a pension, and only another 10-20 years to live then you’re far better off than many Americans.

>so not income-producing

Depends on what you consider a reverse mortgage/equity loan they plan to die before paying.

    > the largest fraction of which is probably their house (so not income-producing)

What about a reverse mortgage? The US has a federal programme, similar to Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, to stimulate the market. Some details here: https://www.investopedia.com/mortgage/reverse-mortgage/

Roughly 1/3 of Boomers also have private pensions (remember those from before the 2000s?). Social Security is about 25K USD per year. It is expected to only cover 40% of living costs. It is scary how many retired Americans live only from Social Security in their retirement.

Moderns who are accustomed to typical homeownership arrangements do not even realize how different this world is from feudal times and manor houses in the UK. If we transplanted a medieval feudal lord or serf to 2026, they would be appalled and shocked at how wasteful our land-use is.

I have contemplated this, especially in terms of universal suffrage, where we've progressed from a male landowner with voting rights, to anyone over 18. And I've also come to find out that there are many, many homeowners today who flout zoning, insurance, and business licensing to run "cottage industries" in SFH-zoned areas, and these are often sources of clash with the HOA.

It's been mentioned on HN before how the "front lawn" and ornamental gardens are implicitly conspicuous consumption. They boast, "I own land and I can waste all this space on non-farmland! I am wealthy enough to feed my family without growing my own!" Because in feudal days, in the manor house, your estate and your land were really expected to produce revenue! The lord of a manor was duty-bound to hire a cadre of servants to care for the home and family, and hire or sublet to farmers and shepherds and others who would exploit the land. The estates, the convents and monasteries, the farmlands, the Southern plantations, these were all implicitly revenue-producing, not merely where someone lived, and then rode a horse to their office somewhere else in a different "zone". That would've been absurdly wasteful...

So today, there are people secretly painting sneakers, or selling firearms, or running a family farm to sell raw milk and mutton, or doing mani-pedis, or selling tee shirts, from their residential-zoned McMansions or even apartments. But typically a SFH, where in 2026, we've decided that if we're investing a cool million in property, it would indeed be wasteful not to exploit that, even if we need to do it on the D.L., and fight endlessly with the HOA and code inspectors, who are gonna say we need to rent office space.

Reverse mortgage FTW! I say in jest because this can be a good structure, it's often associated with shady business practices.

don't forget the 2.5 children in the stats prattle

> The median Boomer has a net worth of $300-$400K, the largest fraction of which is probably their house (so not income-producing)

What? Do you not live in your house?

Very true. And the way things are going, just in the English-speaking countries, United States, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand, those between 18 and 40 are having more trouble buying that house or condo.

Those luxury apartments are going up everywhere, at least in the United States. $2200 a month with amenities for a one bedroom studio.

I'm reminded of a cartoon with an old hippy holding a sign saying "Never trust anyone over 30"....

.... with the 30 crossed out and repalced by 40, which is crossed out and replaced by 50, which is..... you get the idea.

The young calling anybody over 28 'boomer' is the modern equivalent of this :-)

The phrase "boomer is a state of mind, not an age" comes to mind.

The age range of baby boomers is not seriously in question no matter what some internet random on social may say. At most it's a little fuzzy around the edges, but Wikipedia's range of 1946 and 1964 seems on the mark.

Ok Boomer

Wild random insults don't change the definition