6 ms·

I keep hearing this but home ownership percentage is comparable to past generations when you actually look at the data. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHOR

I keep hearing this but home ownership percentage is comparable to past generations when you actually look at the data. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N Also gen z has surpassed millennials and genx in home ownership (with comparable timing). ""In 2022, 30% of 25-year-olds owned a home. At the same age 28% of millennials, and 27% of Gen Xers owned homes, according to real estate brokerage, Redfin."" https://www.marketplace.org/2023/09/14/how-are-gen-zers-buying-homes-already/ https://www.marketplace.org/2023/09/14/how-are-gen-zers-buyi... Im more inclined to believe the lazy mentality is from lifestyle and cultural stemming. Its cool to not care or try. And according to instagram if you're not a millionaire by age 25 then you're a loser. So why even try? That being said I see nothing wrong with a 4 day work week.

onion2k 3y ago
Im more inclined to believe the lazy mentality is from lifestyle and cultural stemming If this generation is on a par with previous generations, or even surpassing them, wouldn't that indicate they're less lazy? You can't have it both ways - either they're lazy and that explains why they're behind, or they're not behind and that has to mean they're not lazy. How can they be both lazy and ahead?
- trident5000 3y ago
  I think its bifurcated. Theres ambitious and lazy people in every generation.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
ethanbond 3y ago
The data is completely unambiguous: housing prices are (and have been) rising much, much, much faster than wages.
- trident5000 3y ago
  The financial aspect of owing a home, as we know, is more complicated than wages and home prices. Theres also the debt aspect and juxtaposed interest rate. In any case, the home ownership hasnt budged much in over 50 years. People just like to complain like they always have.
- anovikov 3y ago
  Well, this is simply not the case. Inflation adjusted housing prices per square foot has been flat for the last 50 years with slight fluctuations. Houses increased in footage, so inflation adjusted house prices have been flat vs wages (that grew). Perception of things being different is simply because everyone and their dog is trying to fit into the few most attractive areas where prices have indeed skyrocketed. U.S. is by far the cheapest in housing prices vs salaries of all developed countries and nearly the cheapest of all large countries in the world. 5th cheapest to be precise, those 4 above are oil petrocracies plus South Africa, that's fucked in so many ways it doesn't need to be discussed.
  - jonahrd 3y ago
    Urbanisation is a trend across the entire globe for many more reasons than just wanting to live in a few attractive areas. And it's absolutely necessary for us to urbanize instead of the wasteful way we use our land, in order to avoid the impending climate, biodiversity, and energy crises. Anyway --- with this square footage argument. End of the day, I'm still priced out of a house, whether it'd be a big one or a small one. I don't really care about the price per square footage, I care about the ability to get a roof over my head. Edit: Actually, can you provide sources for this? From what I can find, home prices have been anything but flat, even adjusting for inflation: https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/ https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/ I have a hard time believing that in ~12 years we grew the entire housing stock square footage by 33% I also found some data that strongly disputes your claim that the US is the 5th lowest house price to salary ratio: https://www.statista.com/statistics/237529/price-to-income-ratio-of-housing-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/237529/price-to-income-r..., in fact it seems to be comfortably in the top 10 _highest_
dutchCourage 3y ago
> Im more inclined to believe the lazy mentality is from lifestyle and cultural stemming. Its cool to not care or try. And according to instagram if you're not a millionaire by age 25 then you're a loser. So why even try? I'm assuming this is why you're being downvoted. It sounds like you're calling the new generation lazy, though I see now that it wasn't necessarily your intent. Personally I fully understand those who don't want to spend most of their time and energy at work. Most jobs aren't fulfilling. Some even downright encourage a dysfunctional system. I was impressed by tech companies in the late 2000s only to realize that they're not trying to "make the world a better place" and that they're just trying to make more money for their shareholders like every company before them. So why would anyone sacrifice their family time, friends and hobbies just to work on another app that puts scooters on cities' sidewalks and build more hardware that'll end up in a landfill? It has nothing to do with being cool or being a millionaire. It's just a generation that had their basic needs taken care of and are now getting their priorities straight.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  >It sounds like you're calling the new generation lazy, though I see now that it wasn't necessarily your intent. I think there is a lot of data that says the latest generation is the most cynical and jaded yet. There is some crossover between cynicism and motivation. Of course if you ask them, it isn't cynicism, it is realism. >It's just a generation that had their basic needs taken care of and are now getting their priorities straight. I think there are is a bit of wanting to have the cake and eat it too. A desire to live a dense urban life, but also have a quaint country home. A desire to be financially independent, but also follow their passions. In short, I think they have been taught and sold a contradictory set of ideals and desires.
  - dutchCourage 3y ago
    I'm sure you'll find some overly idealistic people in the mix, but the article mentions clear trade-offs that young workers are willing to take. Some of them are willing to take a pay cut in order to work less, and they're being called lazy for it. My argument is that it's not laziness, it's the belief that they're better off fostering their personal relationships and passions than adding the extra money in their bank account.
ItsMonkk 3y ago
The homeownership rate is the percentage of HOMES that are lived in by their owners, not the count of PEOPLE that own their own homes. Given a shortage of homes, the homeownership rate will not show you that there is a crisis. For example, if you homeless you do not count. If you live with your parents even though you would prefer to rent if you could afford it, that is a home-owned household. If the owner lives in their home and they rent out a room, that's a home. If you used to rent with 4 people and now live with 8, that's a single rental. If you own and live in multiple homes, you count multiple times. Without more analysis, you can not use this rate to come to any conclusions.
- pb7 3y ago
  > If you live with your parents even though you would prefer to rent if you could afford it, that is a home-owned household. But not owned by you… so it wouldn’t end up in the 30% of "X own their homes" statistic. I’m not really sure what you’re going on about here but none of it makes any sense.
  - ItsMonkk 3y ago
    It would not. You have been misled. Here's backup from wikipedia, or are they also not making sense? > The name "homeownership rate" can be misleading. As defined by the US Census Bureau, it is the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner. It is not the percentage of adults that own their own home. This latter percentage will be significantly lower than the homeownership rate. Many households that are owner-occupied contain adult relatives (often young adults, descendants of the owner) who do not own their own home. Single building multi-bedroom rental units can contain more than one adult, all of whom do not own a home. > the home ownership rate is created through the Housing Vacancy Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau. It is created by dividing the owner occupied units by the total number of occupied units. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_St...

onion2k 3y ago

Im more inclined to believe the lazy mentality is from lifestyle and cultural stemming If this generation is on a par with previous generations, or even surpassing them, wouldn't that indicate they're less lazy? You can't have it both ways - either they're lazy and that explains why they're behind, or they're not behind and that has to mean they're not lazy. How can they be both lazy and ahead?

trident5000 3y ago
I think its bifurcated. Theres ambitious and lazy people in every generation.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

ethanbond 3y ago

The data is completely unambiguous: housing prices are (and have been) rising much, much, much faster than wages.

trident5000 3y ago
The financial aspect of owing a home, as we know, is more complicated than wages and home prices. Theres also the debt aspect and juxtaposed interest rate. In any case, the home ownership hasnt budged much in over 50 years. People just like to complain like they always have.
anovikov 3y ago
Well, this is simply not the case. Inflation adjusted housing prices per square foot has been flat for the last 50 years with slight fluctuations. Houses increased in footage, so inflation adjusted house prices have been flat vs wages (that grew). Perception of things being different is simply because everyone and their dog is trying to fit into the few most attractive areas where prices have indeed skyrocketed. U.S. is by far the cheapest in housing prices vs salaries of all developed countries and nearly the cheapest of all large countries in the world. 5th cheapest to be precise, those 4 above are oil petrocracies plus South Africa, that's fucked in so many ways it doesn't need to be discussed.
- jonahrd 3y ago
  Urbanisation is a trend across the entire globe for many more reasons than just wanting to live in a few attractive areas. And it's absolutely necessary for us to urbanize instead of the wasteful way we use our land, in order to avoid the impending climate, biodiversity, and energy crises. Anyway --- with this square footage argument. End of the day, I'm still priced out of a house, whether it'd be a big one or a small one. I don't really care about the price per square footage, I care about the ability to get a roof over my head. Edit: Actually, can you provide sources for this? From what I can find, home prices have been anything but flat, even adjusting for inflation: https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/ https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/ I have a hard time believing that in ~12 years we grew the entire housing stock square footage by 33% I also found some data that strongly disputes your claim that the US is the 5th lowest house price to salary ratio: https://www.statista.com/statistics/237529/price-to-income-ratio-of-housing-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/237529/price-to-income-r..., in fact it seems to be comfortably in the top 10 _highest_

dutchCourage 3y ago

> Im more inclined to believe the lazy mentality is from lifestyle and cultural stemming. Its cool to not care or try. And according to instagram if you're not a millionaire by age 25 then you're a loser. So why even try? I'm assuming this is why you're being downvoted. It sounds like you're calling the new generation lazy, though I see now that it wasn't necessarily your intent. Personally I fully understand those who don't want to spend most of their time and energy at work. Most jobs aren't fulfilling. Some even downright encourage a dysfunctional system. I was impressed by tech companies in the late 2000s only to realize that they're not trying to "make the world a better place" and that they're just trying to make more money for their shareholders like every company before them. So why would anyone sacrifice their family time, friends and hobbies just to work on another app that puts scooters on cities' sidewalks and build more hardware that'll end up in a landfill? It has nothing to do with being cool or being a millionaire. It's just a generation that had their basic needs taken care of and are now getting their priorities straight.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
>It sounds like you're calling the new generation lazy, though I see now that it wasn't necessarily your intent. I think there is a lot of data that says the latest generation is the most cynical and jaded yet. There is some crossover between cynicism and motivation. Of course if you ask them, it isn't cynicism, it is realism. >It's just a generation that had their basic needs taken care of and are now getting their priorities straight. I think there are is a bit of wanting to have the cake and eat it too. A desire to live a dense urban life, but also have a quaint country home. A desire to be financially independent, but also follow their passions. In short, I think they have been taught and sold a contradictory set of ideals and desires.
- dutchCourage 3y ago
  I'm sure you'll find some overly idealistic people in the mix, but the article mentions clear trade-offs that young workers are willing to take. Some of them are willing to take a pay cut in order to work less, and they're being called lazy for it. My argument is that it's not laziness, it's the belief that they're better off fostering their personal relationships and passions than adding the extra money in their bank account.

ItsMonkk 3y ago

The homeownership rate is the percentage of HOMES that are lived in by their owners, not the count of PEOPLE that own their own homes. Given a shortage of homes, the homeownership rate will not show you that there is a crisis. For example, if you homeless you do not count. If you live with your parents even though you would prefer to rent if you could afford it, that is a home-owned household. If the owner lives in their home and they rent out a room, that's a home. If you used to rent with 4 people and now live with 8, that's a single rental. If you own and live in multiple homes, you count multiple times. Without more analysis, you can not use this rate to come to any conclusions.

pb7 3y ago
> If you live with your parents even though you would prefer to rent if you could afford it, that is a home-owned household. But not owned by you… so it wouldn’t end up in the 30% of "X own their homes" statistic. I’m not really sure what you’re going on about here but none of it makes any sense.
- ItsMonkk 3y ago
  It would not. You have been misled. Here's backup from wikipedia, or are they also not making sense? > The name "homeownership rate" can be misleading. As defined by the US Census Bureau, it is the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner. It is not the percentage of adults that own their own home. This latter percentage will be significantly lower than the homeownership rate. Many households that are owner-occupied contain adult relatives (often young adults, descendants of the owner) who do not own their own home. Single building multi-bedroom rental units can contain more than one adult, all of whom do not own a home. > the home ownership rate is created through the Housing Vacancy Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau. It is created by dividing the owner occupied units by the total number of occupied units. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_St...