15 ms·

I don’t know why you are downvoted. You are right. Upvoted.

by jelliclesfarm 4y ago

adam_arthur 4y ago
Yup, I can cite as needed when the angry comments show up. Too many with a vested belief in the narrative.
- epistasis 4y ago
  You are preventing an extremely selective and unrepresentative view of the stats.
  - adam_arthur 4y ago
    Prove me wrong. Show me the stat for housing units per capita. Housing units per working age person is an all time high. Show me the stats for housing units per household. Hint, it's the same as the year 2000 and in line with historically normal levels. 1.1 housing units per household Show me the stat for rate of construction relative to population growth. Hint, it's at an all time high. Show me the demographic trends? Hint, it's towards flat or negative population growth, with most boomers dying over the next 10y, and each successive generation being smaller than the last. Where are your stats? Inventory, which has nothing to do with actual supply? What happened after the generationally low inventory of the 2000s? Anyone holding to that peg as confirmation of anything is in for a rude awakening
    - nostrademons 4y ago
      But those aren't the relevant stats. As another comment mentioned, newborns generally don't buy houses. The relevant stats are people reaching FTHB age (roughly 25-35), minus deaths, plus new construction. And that picture looks pretty bleak: https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population-structure/usa https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population-structure/u... There are about 45M Americans ages 25-35. There are about 21-22M Americans in peak die-off age (75+). There are about 1.2M annual housing starts: https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf Sure, by 2035 or so, when baby boomers reach peak die-off age, we're going to have a housing bust. But over the next decade? Most Millennials are screwed, and it doesn't get better until today's middle-schoolers come of age.
      - adam_arthur 4y ago
        What matters above all is number of households relative to housing units, and rate of expansion/contraction of households. Household growth was flat prepandemic https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TTLHH https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TTLHH The likely explanation for current RE market is households temporarily expanded due to the various stimulus and forbearances giving many higher disposable income, but we'll likely see this contract again as the effect of inflation takes hold. (Expanding/contracting can be through roommates splitting/joining, kids moving out etc). Housing is fungible. Rental units draw from buy demand and vice versa. Substitutable goods work this way on a macro scale. The millenials who buy, move out of rentals, which drives rents down (or less growth), increasing the spread between carrying cost to rent/own. There's a limit to how far this spread can widen nationally. You can't look at these markets independently. Number of households show the actual number of housing units demanded, everything else is an input to number of households.
        nostrademons 4y ago
        If housing is supply bound - which we know it is, because prices are rising - then rate of household growth is going to equal rate of new home construction, because you can't form those households until there's a house for them to move into. Which it does - compare your link with my census.gov link on new residential construction. Everyone who doesn't have a home has to double up with roommates or continue living with their parents If the question is "Can I maintain the same standard of living as I grew up with?" or "Can I form a family?" or "What are housing prices going to do now?", this isn't an interesting statistic. The number you want to know is "How many people would like to form households but can't because there are no houses to be had?" And that's what I'm citing with the demographic numbers. If there are twice as many people desiring houses as houses available for them, only half the population is going to get a home, and the price that the median home sells for will be what the 75th percentile of the income distribution can support.
        adam_arthur 4y ago
        "Supply" as in inventory is a totally different concept from the actual structural supply of housing. To say housing is supply bound is simply wrong. Inventory is low now and will be high in 6-12 months. To extrapolate out permanent conclusions from a point in time inventory metric is completely flawed analysis. I'll refer you to the generationally low inventory in the 2000s, coupled with similar widespread shortage narratives. It won't end via the same mechanism, but each bubble is unique. Inventory will continue to rapidly increase as rates stay over 5% And again, rate of construction relative to population growth is at an all time high. Every narrative around a supply shortage focused on inventory is clearly and obviously flawed/wrong
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > 1.1 housing units per household The number of households is significantly constrained by the supply of housing units, so that seems like a less relevant number.

I don’t know why you are downvoted. You are right. Upvoted.

adam_arthur 4y ago

Yup, I can cite as needed when the angry comments show up. Too many with a vested belief in the narrative.

epistasis 4y ago
You are preventing an extremely selective and unrepresentative view of the stats.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  Prove me wrong. Show me the stat for housing units per capita. Housing units per working age person is an all time high. Show me the stats for housing units per household. Hint, it's the same as the year 2000 and in line with historically normal levels. 1.1 housing units per household Show me the stat for rate of construction relative to population growth. Hint, it's at an all time high. Show me the demographic trends? Hint, it's towards flat or negative population growth, with most boomers dying over the next 10y, and each successive generation being smaller than the last. Where are your stats? Inventory, which has nothing to do with actual supply? What happened after the generationally low inventory of the 2000s? Anyone holding to that peg as confirmation of anything is in for a rude awakening
  - nostrademons 4y ago
    But those aren't the relevant stats. As another comment mentioned, newborns generally don't buy houses. The relevant stats are people reaching FTHB age (roughly 25-35), minus deaths, plus new construction. And that picture looks pretty bleak: https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population-structure/usa https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population-structure/u... There are about 45M Americans ages 25-35. There are about 21-22M Americans in peak die-off age (75+). There are about 1.2M annual housing starts: https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf Sure, by 2035 or so, when baby boomers reach peak die-off age, we're going to have a housing bust. But over the next decade? Most Millennials are screwed, and it doesn't get better until today's middle-schoolers come of age.
    - adam_arthur 4y ago
      What matters above all is number of households relative to housing units, and rate of expansion/contraction of households. Household growth was flat prepandemic https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TTLHH https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TTLHH The likely explanation for current RE market is households temporarily expanded due to the various stimulus and forbearances giving many higher disposable income, but we'll likely see this contract again as the effect of inflation takes hold. (Expanding/contracting can be through roommates splitting/joining, kids moving out etc). Housing is fungible. Rental units draw from buy demand and vice versa. Substitutable goods work this way on a macro scale. The millenials who buy, move out of rentals, which drives rents down (or less growth), increasing the spread between carrying cost to rent/own. There's a limit to how far this spread can widen nationally. You can't look at these markets independently. Number of households show the actual number of housing units demanded, everything else is an input to number of households.
      - nostrademons 4y ago
        If housing is supply bound - which we know it is, because prices are rising - then rate of household growth is going to equal rate of new home construction, because you can't form those households until there's a house for them to move into. Which it does - compare your link with my census.gov link on new residential construction. Everyone who doesn't have a home has to double up with roommates or continue living with their parents If the question is "Can I maintain the same standard of living as I grew up with?" or "Can I form a family?" or "What are housing prices going to do now?", this isn't an interesting statistic. The number you want to know is "How many people would like to form households but can't because there are no houses to be had?" And that's what I'm citing with the demographic numbers. If there are twice as many people desiring houses as houses available for them, only half the population is going to get a home, and the price that the median home sells for will be what the 75th percentile of the income distribution can support.
        adam_arthur 4y ago
        "Supply" as in inventory is a totally different concept from the actual structural supply of housing. To say housing is supply bound is simply wrong. Inventory is low now and will be high in 6-12 months. To extrapolate out permanent conclusions from a point in time inventory metric is completely flawed analysis. I'll refer you to the generationally low inventory in the 2000s, coupled with similar widespread shortage narratives. It won't end via the same mechanism, but each bubble is unique. Inventory will continue to rapidly increase as rates stay over 5% And again, rate of construction relative to population growth is at an all time high. Every narrative around a supply shortage focused on inventory is clearly and obviously flawed/wrong
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > 1.1 housing units per household The number of households is significantly constrained by the supply of housing units, so that seems like a less relevant number.