5 ms·

I'm always curious about the reported 'homeownership rate'. As far as I'm aware, this is actually the 'living in an owner-occupied home rate'. It includes adult

by tmnvix 5y ago

I'm always curious about the reported 'homeownership rate'. As far as I'm aware, this is actually the 'living in an owner-occupied home rate'. It includes adults living with parents while saving for a deposit, housemates of a homeowner, etc. Is there a truer measure of home ownership?

thfuran 5y ago
I'd say number of privately owned residences / (number of unmarried adults + number of married couples) would be a better figure. What you really want is the number of unique owners among all owned residences, not just the number of owned residences but that's probably harder to get and I suspect that the mean number of homes owned per homeowner is pretty close to one anyways.
HWR_14 5y ago
You have it a little off. This is based on census data where they literally just ask "does the owner of this residence live here?" and "does anyone live here?". The "homeownership rate" is just the yes's to the first question divided by the yes's to the second question. So, by definition, this excludes homeless people, people living in illegal dwellings and counts 7 roommates sharing a single apartment as one "non-owner-occupied household". Also, this is based on randomized legally required self-reporting. I'd imagine there is a skew towards people who are stable enough to own a home among the people who respond. People assume it's "percentage of people who own a house", but it's only about the houses themselves. As to a better measure, a simple better measure is to look at the ages involved. In 1982, 70% of household based around 35-45 were owner-occupied household. By 2021 that number was 60%. It was pretty much a straight line down. Meanwhile, older people saw that rate continue to level off or even grow. Hence, even the flawed data shows that the trend is worsening. So the post you are responding to, once you look at the affected generations, doesn't even say what the original poster was claiming.
- tmnvix 5y ago
  This makes sense and fits with what I understand to be the general 2/3 owner occupied properties and 1/3 rental properties ratio. I never thought though that this was what was essentially being referred to as the 'homeownership rate'. It has always bothered me that the naive interpretation (i.e. that it refers to individuals and not properties) is so often used in political discussion (e.g. "2/3 of voters are home owners"). I am really curious what proportion of people actually own a home. Is it even a majority?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

by tmnvix 5y ago

thfuran 5y ago

I'd say number of privately owned residences / (number of unmarried adults + number of married couples) would be a better figure. What you really want is the number of unique owners among all owned residences, not just the number of owned residences but that's probably harder to get and I suspect that the mean number of homes owned per homeowner is pretty close to one anyways.

HWR_14 5y ago

You have it a little off. This is based on census data where they literally just ask "does the owner of this residence live here?" and "does anyone live here?". The "homeownership rate" is just the yes's to the first question divided by the yes's to the second question. So, by definition, this excludes homeless people, people living in illegal dwellings and counts 7 roommates sharing a single apartment as one "non-owner-occupied household". Also, this is based on randomized legally required self-reporting. I'd imagine there is a skew towards people who are stable enough to own a home among the people who respond. People assume it's "percentage of people who own a house", but it's only about the houses themselves. As to a better measure, a simple better measure is to look at the ages involved. In 1982, 70% of household based around 35-45 were owner-occupied household. By 2021 that number was 60%. It was pretty much a straight line down. Meanwhile, older people saw that rate continue to level off or even grow. Hence, even the flawed data shows that the trend is worsening. So the post you are responding to, once you look at the affected generations, doesn't even say what the original poster was claiming.

tmnvix 5y ago
This makes sense and fits with what I understand to be the general 2/3 owner occupied properties and 1/3 rental properties ratio. I never thought though that this was what was essentially being referred to as the 'homeownership rate'. It has always bothered me that the naive interpretation (i.e. that it refers to individuals and not properties) is so often used in political discussion (e.g. "2/3 of voters are home owners"). I am really curious what proportion of people actually own a home. Is it even a majority?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]