12 ms·

From previous: "In nations in the West, an important limiting factor is the ability to get one’s own apartment. That is, the ratio of average male wage to aver

From previous: "In nations in the West, an important limiting factor is the ability to get one’s own apartment. That is, the ratio of average male wage to average rent. In the USA, the happiest year for this ratio was 1958, when people were spending 22% of their income on rent, on average. Not by coincidence, this was the peak year of the Baby Boom. In some sense, it was the best year in history to be a young white male in the USA. It was the year when it was easiest for an 18 year old male to get out of high school, get their own apartment, marry their high school sweetheart, and start a family. And of course, young people did this in huge numbers, which is why 1958 remains the peak year for teenage pregnancy in the USA." http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike-if-they-do-not-have-women http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike... 1958 is when men had the best wage to rent ratio, and that helped create families and have children. And likewise, nowadays, as rents increase faster than wages, we should expect the birth rate to decline.

sandworm101 8y ago
>> which is why 1958 remains the peak year for teenage pregnancy in the USA. There are plenty more factors impacting teenage pregnancy than the cost of rent. I also hesitate to talk about teenage pregnancy rates in any sort of positive light. There is a very fine line between a 18yo married to her "high school sweetheart" who has a great job, and an unwed 17yo highschool senior who, in 1958 society, had a very rough time. I'd suggest that the later was the more common.
- jetrink 8y ago
  > I'd suggest that the later was the more common. I doubt that was the case. According to the CDC[1], less than 15% of teenage births were to unmarried teenagers in the 1950s. In 1960, the birth rate for teenagers aged 15-17 was a quarter that of teenagers aged 18-19. 1. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_10.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_10.pdf
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    "Births" ... not pregnancies. There is a monumental difference. We know about the births because they are vital stats. But for the pregnancies, at best, we know about the reported pregnancies, the girls who went to doctors and those doctors contributed to the stats. That doesn't cover the girls who did not see doctors nor those who, for whatever reason, did not carry the child to term. >> less than 15% of teenage births were to unmarried teenagers in the 1950s. And exactly how many of those occurred less than 9 months after the wedding? Being pregnant and unmarried in 1958, even temporarily, was not a happy place from which to start adult life.
    - jetrink 8y ago
      That would imply 15-20% of teenagers aged 15-17 having abortions annually. I find that hard to believe.
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        In 1958. I find that unbelievable, not just hard to believe.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      >And exactly how many of those occurred less than 9 months after the wedding? Being pregnant and unmarried in 1958, even temporarily, was not a happy place from which to start adult life. People survived just fine. Life isn't all rainbows and unicorns. Raising a kid as a young couple who are only together for the kid probably sucked a lot less in 1958 because there was a heck of a lot less economic pressure (and bad finances make everything else worse).
      - lawlessone 8y ago
        >People survived just fine. Life isn't all rainbows and unicorns. Raising a kid as a young couple who are only together for the kid probably sucked a lot less in 1958. severely naive and rose tinted.
- lr4444lr 8y ago
  Did you mean the former?
- WalterBright 8y ago
  The Pill came about in 1960, and probably had a large effect in reducing teen pregnancies. Legalizing abortion a large effect as well.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    Sex / health education too made big difference.
baddox 8y ago
In pretty much every analysis involving housing costs, I try to mention that percentage of income spent on housing is not a great metric. A better metric is absolute income minus housing costs. All else being equal, I would gladly earn $1 million per year and spend 75% of it on rent, because that remaining 25% would be a heck of a lot of money. I doubt this metric would significantly change the conclusions of this article, but I’d like to see that metric used.
- geodel 8y ago
  While you are right, it is an exceptional scenario to earn that kind of money. So it is statistically insignificant to calculate absolute income minus rents etc.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    It's quite significant even within much more common ranges. If you make $60K/year and spend 25% of it on rent, you net nearly 20% more than someone who makes $40K and spends 5% on rent. Looking solely at percentage of income spent on housing will lead you to a very wrong conclusion in that circumstance.
    - jexah 8y ago
      You're forgetting about income tax.
      - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
        Then factor that in as well. The divide between $60K/25% and $40K/5% will still be substantial.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > I would gladly earn $1 million per year and spend 75% of it on rent No, you wouldn’t. As income goes higher, long-distance transportation becomes (a) more comfortable and (b) smaller as a fraction of income. De-camping to Washington State and commuting to San Francisco doesn’t make sense at $200,000; it does at $1 or 2 million.
tanilama 8y ago
Ironically, the hiking home prices benefits this generation the most as well.
- defterGoose 8y ago
  In some alternate reality where everyone's goals and chosen locale are identically that of their parents, yes.
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    In theory, if your goals and chosen locale are not identical to your parents, you can sell their house for cash and use the cash to buy a house in your chosen locale. In practice, a large percentage of the population are getting screwed because a.) their parents lost their home in the foreclosure crisis, the bank repossessed it, and it got sold to a private investor b.) their parents had inadequate savings and needed to take out a reverse mortgage, and most of the home equity goes to the bank by the time they die c.) their parents got divorced and their evil stepmother got the house or d.) their parents live in one of the many regions where housing prices are stagnant or declining but the kids need to live in an expensive region to have a job.
    - ntlk 8y ago
      Don’t forget people who: - don’t have parents - are estranged from their parents - would never accept anything from their parents, even after death - whose parents never escaped poverty for long enough to buy property
    - friendzis 8y ago
      I think it is even simpler than that. According to wiki, life expectancy in USA is roughly 80 years. If the children are had at roughly 25-30 years, by the time property is inherited, children are 50-55 - age when they are expected to have grown their own children, not the best age to start a family. Under the same assumptions, grandchildren are 20-30, therefore at a good age to inherit the property. Yet, if we factor in fertility rate of 1.8, that's 3.25 grandchildren on average or 30% stake at the inheritance. More like mortgage deposit, rather than a place to live. For an average person it is not reasonable to expect to inherit a property during age of settling down when that is most needed.
perfmode 8y ago
i wonder how Jim Crow affected these employment and housing markets.
- WillEngler 8y ago
  Check out The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein for an extensive treatment of this topic. (His focus is not on Jim Crow per se, but on the entire web of policies used to enforce segregation across the States, thus locking African Americans out of the great boom in housing wealth post-WWII.)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
rsynnott 8y ago
> In nations in the West, an important limiting factor is the ability to get one’s own apartment. That is, the ratio of average male wage to average rent. The average male wage? Most couples are double-income these days, surely?
paidleaf 8y ago
> 1958 is when men had the best wage to rent ratio, and that helped create families and have children. I don't think it is necessarily the current state, but our view of future prospects that may matter more. I wonder if there are yearly studies of people's outlook on employment prospects/etc broken down by age. Having children is a future oriented endeavor. Your current situation absolutely matters, but I think your outlook on future prospects is the driving factor. I suspect it is so for women too. If you think your purchasing power, ability to own a home, etc in the future is diminishing, it would affect both the male and female positions on whether to have or the number of kids to raise.
anthony_barker 8y ago
Interesting in places like Hong Kong and Japan it seems to also hold true.

sandworm101 8y ago

>> which is why 1958 remains the peak year for teenage pregnancy in the USA. There are plenty more factors impacting teenage pregnancy than the cost of rent. I also hesitate to talk about teenage pregnancy rates in any sort of positive light. There is a very fine line between a 18yo married to her "high school sweetheart" who has a great job, and an unwed 17yo highschool senior who, in 1958 society, had a very rough time. I'd suggest that the later was the more common.

jetrink 8y ago
> I'd suggest that the later was the more common. I doubt that was the case. According to the CDC[1], less than 15% of teenage births were to unmarried teenagers in the 1950s. In 1960, the birth rate for teenagers aged 15-17 was a quarter that of teenagers aged 18-19. 1. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_10.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_10.pdf
- sandworm101 8y ago
  "Births" ... not pregnancies. There is a monumental difference. We know about the births because they are vital stats. But for the pregnancies, at best, we know about the reported pregnancies, the girls who went to doctors and those doctors contributed to the stats. That doesn't cover the girls who did not see doctors nor those who, for whatever reason, did not carry the child to term. >> less than 15% of teenage births were to unmarried teenagers in the 1950s. And exactly how many of those occurred less than 9 months after the wedding? Being pregnant and unmarried in 1958, even temporarily, was not a happy place from which to start adult life.
  - jetrink 8y ago
    That would imply 15-20% of teenagers aged 15-17 having abortions annually. I find that hard to believe.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      In 1958. I find that unbelievable, not just hard to believe.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >And exactly how many of those occurred less than 9 months after the wedding? Being pregnant and unmarried in 1958, even temporarily, was not a happy place from which to start adult life. People survived just fine. Life isn't all rainbows and unicorns. Raising a kid as a young couple who are only together for the kid probably sucked a lot less in 1958 because there was a heck of a lot less economic pressure (and bad finances make everything else worse).
    - lawlessone 8y ago
      >People survived just fine. Life isn't all rainbows and unicorns. Raising a kid as a young couple who are only together for the kid probably sucked a lot less in 1958. severely naive and rose tinted.
lr4444lr 8y ago
Did you mean the former?
WalterBright 8y ago
The Pill came about in 1960, and probably had a large effect in reducing teen pregnancies. Legalizing abortion a large effect as well.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  Sex / health education too made big difference.

baddox 8y ago

In pretty much every analysis involving housing costs, I try to mention that percentage of income spent on housing is not a great metric. A better metric is absolute income minus housing costs. All else being equal, I would gladly earn $1 million per year and spend 75% of it on rent, because that remaining 25% would be a heck of a lot of money. I doubt this metric would significantly change the conclusions of this article, but I’d like to see that metric used.

geodel 8y ago
While you are right, it is an exceptional scenario to earn that kind of money. So it is statistically insignificant to calculate absolute income minus rents etc.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  It's quite significant even within much more common ranges. If you make $60K/year and spend 25% of it on rent, you net nearly 20% more than someone who makes $40K and spends 5% on rent. Looking solely at percentage of income spent on housing will lead you to a very wrong conclusion in that circumstance.
  - jexah 8y ago
    You're forgetting about income tax.
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      Then factor that in as well. The divide between $60K/25% and $40K/5% will still be substantial.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> I would gladly earn $1 million per year and spend 75% of it on rent No, you wouldn’t. As income goes higher, long-distance transportation becomes (a) more comfortable and (b) smaller as a fraction of income. De-camping to Washington State and commuting to San Francisco doesn’t make sense at $200,000; it does at $1 or 2 million.

tanilama 8y ago

Ironically, the hiking home prices benefits this generation the most as well.

defterGoose 8y ago
In some alternate reality where everyone's goals and chosen locale are identically that of their parents, yes.
- nostrademons 8y ago
  In theory, if your goals and chosen locale are not identical to your parents, you can sell their house for cash and use the cash to buy a house in your chosen locale. In practice, a large percentage of the population are getting screwed because a.) their parents lost their home in the foreclosure crisis, the bank repossessed it, and it got sold to a private investor b.) their parents had inadequate savings and needed to take out a reverse mortgage, and most of the home equity goes to the bank by the time they die c.) their parents got divorced and their evil stepmother got the house or d.) their parents live in one of the many regions where housing prices are stagnant or declining but the kids need to live in an expensive region to have a job.
  - ntlk 8y ago
    Don’t forget people who: - don’t have parents - are estranged from their parents - would never accept anything from their parents, even after death - whose parents never escaped poverty for long enough to buy property
  - friendzis 8y ago
    I think it is even simpler than that. According to wiki, life expectancy in USA is roughly 80 years. If the children are had at roughly 25-30 years, by the time property is inherited, children are 50-55 - age when they are expected to have grown their own children, not the best age to start a family. Under the same assumptions, grandchildren are 20-30, therefore at a good age to inherit the property. Yet, if we factor in fertility rate of 1.8, that's 3.25 grandchildren on average or 30% stake at the inheritance. More like mortgage deposit, rather than a place to live. For an average person it is not reasonable to expect to inherit a property during age of settling down when that is most needed.

perfmode 8y ago

i wonder how Jim Crow affected these employment and housing markets.

WillEngler 8y ago
Check out The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein for an extensive treatment of this topic. (His focus is not on Jim Crow per se, but on the entire web of policies used to enforce segregation across the States, thus locking African Americans out of the great boom in housing wealth post-WWII.)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

rsynnott 8y ago

> In nations in the West, an important limiting factor is the ability to get one’s own apartment. That is, the ratio of average male wage to average rent. The average male wage? Most couples are double-income these days, surely?

paidleaf 8y ago

> 1958 is when men had the best wage to rent ratio, and that helped create families and have children. I don't think it is necessarily the current state, but our view of future prospects that may matter more. I wonder if there are yearly studies of people's outlook on employment prospects/etc broken down by age. Having children is a future oriented endeavor. Your current situation absolutely matters, but I think your outlook on future prospects is the driving factor. I suspect it is so for women too. If you think your purchasing power, ability to own a home, etc in the future is diminishing, it would affect both the male and female positions on whether to have or the number of kids to raise.

anthony_barker 8y ago

Interesting in places like Hong Kong and Japan it seems to also hold true.