4 ms·

The grandparents point is excellent. I never thought of it that way but it was / is certainly true for me. Definitely feels true for kids growing up without si

by pkdpic 4y ago

The grandparents point is excellent. I never thought of it that way but it was / is certainly true for me. Definitely feels true for kids growing up without siblings too. I know we would have had more than one probably if housing wasn't such an enormous consideration.

montagg 4y ago
Yeah, the family planning changes that result from housing costs literally have generational effects. Even if you think of it just from a housing and economy perspective, the tax base and workforce of the future is smaller because of high housing costs. Value that could be better for everyone (more jobs can be done, more tax can be spent on everyone, more economic activity can occur for businesses) taken out of the future and brought into present home values.
loeg 4y ago
Not just grandparents -- often kids cannot afford to live near their parents. My parents bought their house for $490,000 (2023 dollars) and Redfin estimates it would cost $1,300,000 today.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > often kids cannot afford to live near their parents. That's one point, but another is that the careers of many young people force them to migrate across the country or even across continents. Academia and IT are particularly known for this, but also other industries like moviemaking have their world-wide-known centers.
- ido 4y ago
  That was the point though, right? Your kids won't know your parents (their grandparents) if you're forced to live really far away.
- randomdata 4y ago
  Surely housing your kids elsewhere would be more expensive than keeping them under your roof? Early settler homes were typically a single room and not much bigger than a modern living room, and they had many kids living there. Space is a wonderful luxury, but hardly a necessity.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    It is a 'necessity'. Building and/or zoning codes require often 1200 sq ft minimum and then it's illegal to rent out beyond a certain occupancy. You may be able to get away with it with just adults. Kids talk, sooner or later some 'well meaning' individual reports them to CPS for 'inadequate shelter' and the whole thing destruct.
    - jxramos 4y ago
      I'd think they'd say that was a self imposed constraint not tied to any absolute survival needs of the human body.
  - jxramos 4y ago
    it's always a good point to look to prior human challenges in history to tease out essentials from simple hardships as hard as they could be. People survived those ordeals in spite of the limitations.
  - myko 4y ago
    We could also live in caves but folks wouldn't recommend that. A family living in a single room the size of a modern living room would soon get child protection agencies called on them–what was normal in pioneer days (pro-creating in the same room as your children, for example) would certainly be a serious issue today!
    - randomdata 4y ago
      But pushing your kids far away to live without parents wouldn't be a serious issue?
      - myko 4y ago
        To be clear, I'm for higher density housing and new builds in the Bay and outlying areas, which would make it easier for families to stay closer together.
      - LeifCarrotson 4y ago
- dclowd9901 4y ago
  With some exceptions, I plan on moving wherever my kids live. Not sure why this is unthinkable.
  - steveklabnik 4y ago
    My mother could not afford to move reasonably close to where I live (Austin, not CA though). Certainly not in walking distance, maybe in a suburb, but that's even assuming she could find work.
  - dpkirchner 4y ago
    This won't scale all that well -- like if you have more than one kid.
    - QuercusMax 4y ago
      Yeah, my parents at one point had their 5 adult kids living in Ohio, Oregon, California, North Carolina, and Brazil. Really doesn't scale.
thatfrenchguy 4y ago
> The grandparents point is excellent. I never thought of it that way but it was / is certainly true for me. Eh, I mean, for a lot of homeowners in the bay area, because they so little amount of housing compared to market price, they usually can (and do for some communities) front large down payements for their kids' houses. That's how you see so many people in their late 20s affording houses you have two have two or three of: two good incomes, frugal mindset, good RSUs / IPOs, or parental help. Obviously it sucks for people who do not have upper middle class parents, and that's why we need to fix this stupid housing crisis.
- davidw 4y ago
  Yes, having a 'landed gentry' is not ideal in a lot of ways. Especially in an area that really has seen some amazing success from fairly 'average background' sorts of people.
CalRobert 4y ago
We had a second kid in part because we moved to a house big enough for one (3 bedrooms!)
mavelikara 4y ago
> The grandparents point is excellent. I never thought of it that way but it was / is certainly true for me. But do the grandparents want to know the kids? If they did, they would not oppose new housing near theirs.

by pkdpic 4y ago

montagg 4y ago

Yeah, the family planning changes that result from housing costs literally have generational effects. Even if you think of it just from a housing and economy perspective, the tax base and workforce of the future is smaller because of high housing costs. Value that could be better for everyone (more jobs can be done, more tax can be spent on everyone, more economic activity can occur for businesses) taken out of the future and brought into present home values.

loeg 4y ago

Not just grandparents -- often kids cannot afford to live near their parents. My parents bought their house for $490,000 (2023 dollars) and Redfin estimates it would cost $1,300,000 today.

mschuster91 4y ago
> often kids cannot afford to live near their parents. That's one point, but another is that the careers of many young people force them to migrate across the country or even across continents. Academia and IT are particularly known for this, but also other industries like moviemaking have their world-wide-known centers.
ido 4y ago
That was the point though, right? Your kids won't know your parents (their grandparents) if you're forced to live really far away.
randomdata 4y ago
Surely housing your kids elsewhere would be more expensive than keeping them under your roof? Early settler homes were typically a single room and not much bigger than a modern living room, and they had many kids living there. Space is a wonderful luxury, but hardly a necessity.
- notch898a 4y ago
  It is a 'necessity'. Building and/or zoning codes require often 1200 sq ft minimum and then it's illegal to rent out beyond a certain occupancy. You may be able to get away with it with just adults. Kids talk, sooner or later some 'well meaning' individual reports them to CPS for 'inadequate shelter' and the whole thing destruct.
  - jxramos 4y ago
    I'd think they'd say that was a self imposed constraint not tied to any absolute survival needs of the human body.
- jxramos 4y ago
  it's always a good point to look to prior human challenges in history to tease out essentials from simple hardships as hard as they could be. People survived those ordeals in spite of the limitations.
- myko 4y ago
  We could also live in caves but folks wouldn't recommend that. A family living in a single room the size of a modern living room would soon get child protection agencies called on them–what was normal in pioneer days (pro-creating in the same room as your children, for example) would certainly be a serious issue today!
  - randomdata 4y ago
    But pushing your kids far away to live without parents wouldn't be a serious issue?
    - myko 4y ago
      To be clear, I'm for higher density housing and new builds in the Bay and outlying areas, which would make it easier for families to stay closer together.
    - LeifCarrotson 4y ago
dclowd9901 4y ago
With some exceptions, I plan on moving wherever my kids live. Not sure why this is unthinkable.
- steveklabnik 4y ago
  My mother could not afford to move reasonably close to where I live (Austin, not CA though). Certainly not in walking distance, maybe in a suburb, but that's even assuming she could find work.
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  This won't scale all that well -- like if you have more than one kid.
  - QuercusMax 4y ago
    Yeah, my parents at one point had their 5 adult kids living in Ohio, Oregon, California, North Carolina, and Brazil. Really doesn't scale.

thatfrenchguy 4y ago

> The grandparents point is excellent. I never thought of it that way but it was / is certainly true for me. Eh, I mean, for a lot of homeowners in the bay area, because they so little amount of housing compared to market price, they usually can (and do for some communities) front large down payements for their kids' houses. That's how you see so many people in their late 20s affording houses you have two have two or three of: two good incomes, frugal mindset, good RSUs / IPOs, or parental help. Obviously it sucks for people who do not have upper middle class parents, and that's why we need to fix this stupid housing crisis.

davidw 4y ago
Yes, having a 'landed gentry' is not ideal in a lot of ways. Especially in an area that really has seen some amazing success from fairly 'average background' sorts of people.

CalRobert 4y ago

We had a second kid in part because we moved to a house big enough for one (3 bedrooms!)

mavelikara 4y ago

> The grandparents point is excellent. I never thought of it that way but it was / is certainly true for me. But do the grandparents want to know the kids? If they did, they would not oppose new housing near theirs.