4 ms·

Rising rents and harder to get home loans do sound like the primary cause. That being said, I also believe there is not quite the same urgency to leave home fo

Rising rents and harder to get home loans do sound like the primary cause. That being said, I also believe there is not quite the same urgency to leave home for current young adults. Just from personal observation they don't necessarily see increasing their expenses just to be more independent as worthwhile. Same goes with getting a driver license and a car. I don't think it's necessarily being lazy, I think they might rightly see that building up all these expenses just to be independent is a bit overkill. Mix this with people in general getting married later and I find it quite natural that more people are living at home.

YokoZar 10y ago
And the cause of rising rents and harder to get loans is a rise in home prices. Yet when we hear news reports about rising housing costs, we say that the housing market is "recovering" as though it's somehow a good thing. Perhaps we should rethink our nationwide policies of raising housing costs.
- jackcosgrove 10y ago
  We have policies that favor home owners because, 1) older people are more likely to own homes and they vote at higher rates, and 2) politicians love property tax revenue. If you don't vote and you don't fill their coffers, you're invisible to politicians.
  - taurath 10y ago
    And there is a generation of people ready with hammers to knock down that wall of equity so they can afford to live. Right now we're in the negotiating phase. Wait for the right politician.
    - codingmyway 10y ago
      The occupy movement should have occupied all vacant buildings, a lot of which were effectively owned by banks, and demanded the return of squatters rights. Next time, get it right
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dikdik 10y ago
I sort of agree with you, but I don't think you completely understand the problem. Yes, it doesn't really "matter" if people are living with their parents or on their own. The problem is what this shift signals. People are not much different than they were 50 years ago. If it took just as much resources to live on your own 50 years ago as today, there would "not be the same urgency to leave home." Of course no one wants to leave home if it's going to cost them 40% of their take home pay, but if it only costs them 10-20% of their pay, I really doubt you will see a ton of millenials that don't care about living at home. This shift in housing signals a dearth of resources available to the current generation. Do we think that's a good thing? A bad thing? Or is it completely neutral? Does it have implications elsewhere for our economy? These are the things that are actually important.
- white-flame 10y ago
  Or is this a signal that the broad and rapid American growth in the middle of the 20th century was anomalous, not a baseline? It might not be a "dearth of resources" but a return to the true long-term norm.
  - ProAm 10y ago
    It wasnt anomalous, we were pretty much the only country not bombed to pieces and had an infrastructure to build upon while most countries were simply rebuilding.
  - closeparen 10y ago
    Given a large enough time horizon, the only "baseline" lifestyle is subsistence agriculture.
    - tonyedgecombe 10y ago
      I think it's probably sensible to start after the industrial revolution.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    The broad, rapid American growth has a lot to do with the fact that Europe and the Far East was in complete ruins after WWII and the US was in the immediate position to rebuild Europe. Remember, right before the mid century prosperity, we were in a massive depression caused by the "Roaring 20s" which was fueled by another smoldering Europe. The time period before WWI; the late 1800s and early 1900s were pretty bleak. Before that, the North was fairly prosperous but the South was under reconstruction, so that region was pretty bleak as well. Of course, there is plenty of wealth to go around today, it's just concentrated due to a war on the middle class by industry, aided by goverment, dating back to at least Reagan.
white-flame 10y ago
In the video, they mention that the job growth isn't evenly distributed; it's really only happening on the coastal business hot spots, where real estate was already insane, so that portion of the recovery doesn't help at all with housing. Consequently, is the implication that the rest of the country isn't recovering nearly as well as the average is reporting? Housing might not be shooting up in the rest of the country, but wages and job opportunities are not great, either.

YokoZar 10y ago

And the cause of rising rents and harder to get loans is a rise in home prices. Yet when we hear news reports about rising housing costs, we say that the housing market is "recovering" as though it's somehow a good thing. Perhaps we should rethink our nationwide policies of raising housing costs.

jackcosgrove 10y ago
We have policies that favor home owners because, 1) older people are more likely to own homes and they vote at higher rates, and 2) politicians love property tax revenue. If you don't vote and you don't fill their coffers, you're invisible to politicians.
- taurath 10y ago
  And there is a generation of people ready with hammers to knock down that wall of equity so they can afford to live. Right now we're in the negotiating phase. Wait for the right politician.
  - codingmyway 10y ago
    The occupy movement should have occupied all vacant buildings, a lot of which were effectively owned by banks, and demanded the return of squatters rights. Next time, get it right

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dikdik 10y ago

I sort of agree with you, but I don't think you completely understand the problem. Yes, it doesn't really "matter" if people are living with their parents or on their own. The problem is what this shift signals. People are not much different than they were 50 years ago. If it took just as much resources to live on your own 50 years ago as today, there would "not be the same urgency to leave home." Of course no one wants to leave home if it's going to cost them 40% of their take home pay, but if it only costs them 10-20% of their pay, I really doubt you will see a ton of millenials that don't care about living at home. This shift in housing signals a dearth of resources available to the current generation. Do we think that's a good thing? A bad thing? Or is it completely neutral? Does it have implications elsewhere for our economy? These are the things that are actually important.

white-flame 10y ago
Or is this a signal that the broad and rapid American growth in the middle of the 20th century was anomalous, not a baseline? It might not be a "dearth of resources" but a return to the true long-term norm.
- ProAm 10y ago
  It wasnt anomalous, we were pretty much the only country not bombed to pieces and had an infrastructure to build upon while most countries were simply rebuilding.
- closeparen 10y ago
  Given a large enough time horizon, the only "baseline" lifestyle is subsistence agriculture.
  - tonyedgecombe 10y ago
    I think it's probably sensible to start after the industrial revolution.
- Clubber 10y ago
  The broad, rapid American growth has a lot to do with the fact that Europe and the Far East was in complete ruins after WWII and the US was in the immediate position to rebuild Europe. Remember, right before the mid century prosperity, we were in a massive depression caused by the "Roaring 20s" which was fueled by another smoldering Europe. The time period before WWI; the late 1800s and early 1900s were pretty bleak. Before that, the North was fairly prosperous but the South was under reconstruction, so that region was pretty bleak as well. Of course, there is plenty of wealth to go around today, it's just concentrated due to a war on the middle class by industry, aided by goverment, dating back to at least Reagan.

white-flame 10y ago

In the video, they mention that the job growth isn't evenly distributed; it's really only happening on the coastal business hot spots, where real estate was already insane, so that portion of the recovery doesn't help at all with housing. Consequently, is the implication that the rest of the country isn't recovering nearly as well as the average is reporting? Housing might not be shooting up in the rest of the country, but wages and job opportunities are not great, either.