Comment by SoftTalker
1 day ago
And though some are quite wealthy, the average Boomer net worth of about $1.6MM is concentrated in the wealthy top few, like any other demographic. The median Boomer has a net worth of $300-$400K, the largest fraction of which is probably their house (so not income-producing), and that isn't really a lot to live off of in 2026.
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.
> 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
I don't understand, is it paid for or not?
Missing a semicolon there, I think:
"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"
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.
Sounds sensible. In my country (and probably many others), if you and your neighbour own identical houses or apartments and have identical mortgages, and instead of living in your own one you rent the neighbours one and live in that and vice versa, then you can both offset your mortgage interest against the rental income and both be better off than if you lived in your own house.
If it’s better for you and your neighbor to switch houses and rent from each other the system is broken.
I accept the premise on the math, but "better off" is subjective. I'm in the UK so that's my context.
When your renter informs you of the boiler breaking, or a roof needs replacing, that's going to get thorny - "It was fine when I was using it/living in it, did you break it?"
Perhaps the latest round of updates to property law for renters come along and suddenly as a landlord you have to above and beyond what you need to as an owner; you both have to do X, Y or Z to your properties because they're rental and not a basic owner situation.
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.
I think that varies in availability depending on country.
Sweden is pretty hard on mortgages/loans to people who are retired, know problem for some actually.
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.
The obvious difference between then and now is intensive agriculture. In modern times, we don't need as much farmland per capita. I hate seeing productive farmland developed into mcmansions as much as anyone. But, the market values the mcmansions more.
Latifundia would have been a known concept to the historic peoples mentioned by GP and the ones GP is talking about purposefully rejected the practice. Local, small agriculture was a key aspect of culture and political power, insofar as the power to feed is the power to deny food.
Reverse mortgage FTW! I say in jest because this can be a good structure, it's often associated with shady business practices.
There is a gov't web page about this product: https://www.hud.gov/hud-partners/single-family-hecmhome
That page has a telephone hotline that people can call to get advice, including help to find a reliable broker. Probably the biggest problem with (honest) reverse mortgages is that they can run out of money before you die. You can continue to stay in your house, but you probably immediately fall into extreme poverty.
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?
You do, but even if it's paid for, you still have to pay taxes, insurance, and maintenance on it. It's likely better than renting in most cases, but it's not a free place to live.
It's still an income-producing asset. It produces quite a lot of income. You have to pay for maintenance on everything, but that doesn't mean that income-producing assets don't exist.
Living in a house is not income.
It's imputed income because you don't have to pay rent.
1 reply →
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.
Come on. There are plenty of places in the USA where you can rent a small apartment for less than $2200. Try Cleveland.
Because boomers were imbued with love for centralized solutions by their greatest generation parents without really understand the "this isn't a magic wand" side of the coin. And so they went on and regulated the living crap out of where and what kind of housing (everything really) can be built so the only way to make a project still have a "someone will finance this" profit margin after all the getting kicked in the dick by regulatory hoops you gotta do is to build a lot of units hence the proliferation of luxury condos and tract home/townhouse developments.