5 ms·

Of course the economics of moving out haven't gotten easier for younger folks, and there's a severe shortage of housing has made almost everything worse. Still,

Of course the economics of moving out haven't gotten easier for younger folks, and there's a severe shortage of housing has made almost everything worse. Still, a few things to note: - Since baby boomers were born, the US has gotten a lot more diverse. - This is meaningful, because in a lot of cultures, multigenerational homes are the norm. There is a lot less pressure to move out just because one is an adult, and there's more emphasis on the family unit. - It doesn't seem like a coincidence that diverse places like LA and NYC are more multigenerational. Yes of course they're also a lot more expensive, and it's not just a cultural thing.

vivekd 3y ago
We also have to account for the fact that NY and LA are also unreasonably expensive. I wouldn't be able to afford to live there, and I say this as a Canadian, a place known for high prices particularly in housing Also multi generation home might be a red herring. Because in just about every country adults are supposed to support themselves. Multigenerational means you support your parents not that they support you. So the type of multigenerational homes we see rising today might not be reflective of different cultural preferences explainable by rising diversity
- ProfessorLayton 3y ago
  >Because in just about every country adults are supposed to support themselves. China, India, and Latin America make up an extremely large portion the world's entire population, and families from there have had a growing presence in the US. Multigenerational housing is the norm there, and is absolutely not a red herring. Additionally, the focus is on supporting the family unit, not supporting in one specific direction. I definitely agree that high prices (housing in particular) are contributing to this, but so is culture.
  - vivekd 3y ago
    I'm not saying india doesn't have multi generational housing I'm saying the nature is different It's traditionally not made up of adult children who are unable to support themselves. Instead it's made up of adult children supporting parents in their old age. That's not the same thing we're seeing in the US where lots of millenials are staying home due to being unable to support themselves
    - ProfessorLayton 3y ago
      >It's traditionally not made up of adult children who are unable to support themselves. Instead it's made up of adult children supporting parents in their old age. This does not necessarily mean the parents are supporting their adult children directly, it also means mutual support. An example: Parents will argue "Why move out and pay a lot to a random landlord when you're welcome here and can save money?". It is not a free ticket to freeload, the child is expected to contribute in some manner to household (Pay rent, split bills, help with chores etc.). Parents from these aforementioned backgrounds actually encourage children to stay as long as they want, or at least until marriage. It is not seen as shameful that they're past 18 and still at home. I'm not arguing that economics don't play a factor, but I believe that's only part of the reason.
QuarterReptile 3y ago
Unfortunately, cars are so decidedly necessary to do anything on a daily basis that the multi-generational households can't save on cars as ought to be easy... With the exception that there should be no more than one pickup truck and one big people mover per house.
riku_iki 3y ago
> there's a severe shortage of housing has made almost everything worse. it is not clear there is severe shortage of housing in general, but there is another factor: houses were used as investment vehicle by rich people during 20 years of low interest rate, which drove price up significantly, and also decreased available(not total) inventory.
- ProfessorLayton 3y ago
  Houses wouldn't be an investment vehicle if there were enough of them that anyone who wanted would could reasonably afford one. This requires building a lot more than there are today.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    > if there were enough of them that anyone who wanted would could reasonably afford one the problem is that investors want not one, but say 10. > This requires building a lot more than there are today. first link in google says there are 144M housing units in US. Is it not enough for 350M population?
    - ProfessorLayton 3y ago
      >the problem is that investors want not one, but say 10. Investors wouldn't want 10 if prices were stagnant because there was plenty of supply. >first link in google says there are 144M housing units in US. Is it not enough for 350M population? If housing isn't where people are, then no there isn't enough. About half the US population lives metropolitan areas.
      - riku_iki 3y ago
        > Investors wouldn't want 10 if prices were stagnant because there was plenty of supply. yes, and prices were not stagnant because many rushed to buy with low interest risk free loans. And now they don't want to sell, because they can rent it for high. > If housing isn't where people are, then no there isn't enough. About half the US population lives metropolitan areas. even if 80% lives in metropolian areas, which I would totally believe, do you have any evidence that houses are not there too?

vivekd 3y ago

We also have to account for the fact that NY and LA are also unreasonably expensive. I wouldn't be able to afford to live there, and I say this as a Canadian, a place known for high prices particularly in housing Also multi generation home might be a red herring. Because in just about every country adults are supposed to support themselves. Multigenerational means you support your parents not that they support you. So the type of multigenerational homes we see rising today might not be reflective of different cultural preferences explainable by rising diversity

ProfessorLayton 3y ago
>Because in just about every country adults are supposed to support themselves. China, India, and Latin America make up an extremely large portion the world's entire population, and families from there have had a growing presence in the US. Multigenerational housing is the norm there, and is absolutely not a red herring. Additionally, the focus is on supporting the family unit, not supporting in one specific direction. I definitely agree that high prices (housing in particular) are contributing to this, but so is culture.
- vivekd 3y ago
  I'm not saying india doesn't have multi generational housing I'm saying the nature is different It's traditionally not made up of adult children who are unable to support themselves. Instead it's made up of adult children supporting parents in their old age. That's not the same thing we're seeing in the US where lots of millenials are staying home due to being unable to support themselves
  - ProfessorLayton 3y ago
    >It's traditionally not made up of adult children who are unable to support themselves. Instead it's made up of adult children supporting parents in their old age. This does not necessarily mean the parents are supporting their adult children directly, it also means mutual support. An example: Parents will argue "Why move out and pay a lot to a random landlord when you're welcome here and can save money?". It is not a free ticket to freeload, the child is expected to contribute in some manner to household (Pay rent, split bills, help with chores etc.). Parents from these aforementioned backgrounds actually encourage children to stay as long as they want, or at least until marriage. It is not seen as shameful that they're past 18 and still at home. I'm not arguing that economics don't play a factor, but I believe that's only part of the reason.

QuarterReptile 3y ago

Unfortunately, cars are so decidedly necessary to do anything on a daily basis that the multi-generational households can't save on cars as ought to be easy... With the exception that there should be no more than one pickup truck and one big people mover per house.

riku_iki 3y ago

> there's a severe shortage of housing has made almost everything worse. it is not clear there is severe shortage of housing in general, but there is another factor: houses were used as investment vehicle by rich people during 20 years of low interest rate, which drove price up significantly, and also decreased available(not total) inventory.

ProfessorLayton 3y ago
Houses wouldn't be an investment vehicle if there were enough of them that anyone who wanted would could reasonably afford one. This requires building a lot more than there are today.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  > if there were enough of them that anyone who wanted would could reasonably afford one the problem is that investors want not one, but say 10. > This requires building a lot more than there are today. first link in google says there are 144M housing units in US. Is it not enough for 350M population?
  - ProfessorLayton 3y ago
    >the problem is that investors want not one, but say 10. Investors wouldn't want 10 if prices were stagnant because there was plenty of supply. >first link in google says there are 144M housing units in US. Is it not enough for 350M population? If housing isn't where people are, then no there isn't enough. About half the US population lives metropolitan areas.
    - riku_iki 3y ago
      > Investors wouldn't want 10 if prices were stagnant because there was plenty of supply. yes, and prices were not stagnant because many rushed to buy with low interest risk free loans. And now they don't want to sell, because they can rent it for high. > If housing isn't where people are, then no there isn't enough. About half the US population lives metropolitan areas. even if 80% lives in metropolian areas, which I would totally believe, do you have any evidence that houses are not there too?