4 ms·

That table doesn't break things down by age. Just own it dude. You pulled the "49% of people aged 30-34" thing from this chart https://www.census.gov/housing/h

by hmcq6 3y ago

That table doesn't break things down by age. Just own it dude. You pulled the "49% of people aged 30-34" thing from this chart https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/qtr423/tab7.xlsx https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/qtr423/tab7.xlsx or some variation of it and you misunderstood it.

lolinder 3y ago
Sorry, I just updated my links to include the citation for the age breakdown, which is in fact the link you linked to. Note the title of the chart you linked to (tab7.xlsx): "Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder" (emphasis added). This is percentage of householders who own the home that they are the householder of. EDIT: Also, while I'm at it, here's "Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder: 1994 to Present" (again, homeownership), which shows a 39% homeownership rate under 35 years old, which is about the same rate as it was throughout the 90s. It broke 40% in the 2000s for a while before coming back down, but was never higher than about 43%. https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/histtab19.xlsx https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/histtab19.xlsx
- hmcq6 3y ago
  > This is percentage of householders who own the home that they are the householder of. It is not. It's a ratio of homeowners in an age group to the number of renter households in that age group, which is kinda a useless statistic. To explain why it's a bad metric take this real (but simplified) example. My roommate and I share a "household". Lets pretend that besides my roommate and I there is only one other person aged 30-34 in the US and they own a home. The Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder chart would say 50%. 1 owner household / 2 total occupied households. Now if you read that chart and take it to mean that there is only 1 homeowner and 1 renter, you would be misunderstanding what the statistics mean. There are more renters than homeowners in our example but the metric doesn't reflect that because it isn't meant to.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    This is a fair argument and as late as it is I don't have a reply—you're right that there are limitations that I hadn't considered, and I'll have to look at the numbers more closely to figure out what they mean *. However, I want to note that this represents a sudden change of pace from your original "49% of us are homeowners or renters" and "you've just linked to some statistics that show we can still afford rent". When you misunderstood the situation, you insisted that I "own it" that I was wrong (when I wasn't). It would behoove you to do so yourself instead of pretending you understood the numbers all along. * Edit: as an initial thought, I'd argue that the same argument often applies to the homeowner number—my wife and I jointly owning one house balances out you and your roommate.
    - hmcq6 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - refurb 3y ago
    But the measurement has been constant since the 90's - it hasn't changed. So regardless of the definition, it's remained constant, thus the idea that living arrangements have suddenly and dramatically shifted is not true.
    - light_hue_1 3y ago
      I'm so terribly confused. How can you read this discussion and come to that conclusion? The whole point is that the number being quoted hides the truth. Living arrangements have suddenly and dramatically shifted. For First Time in Modern Era, Living With Parents Edges Out Other Living Arrangements for 18- to 34-Year-Olds: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2016/05/24/for-first-time-in-modern-era-living-with-parents-edges-out-other-living-arrangements-for-18-to-34-year-olds/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2016/05/24/for-fir... Another way to look at it, for the last century until about the year 2000 around 12% of men 24-35 lived with their parents. Now the number is 20%. That's a massive difference. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ad-1.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat...
grfhtsdfvv 3y ago
[flagged]

by hmcq6 3y ago

lolinder 3y ago

Sorry, I just updated my links to include the citation for the age breakdown, which is in fact the link you linked to. Note the title of the chart you linked to (tab7.xlsx): "Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder" (emphasis added). This is percentage of householders who own the home that they are the householder of. EDIT: Also, while I'm at it, here's "Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder: 1994 to Present" (again, homeownership), which shows a 39% homeownership rate under 35 years old, which is about the same rate as it was throughout the 90s. It broke 40% in the 2000s for a while before coming back down, but was never higher than about 43%. https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/histtab19.xlsx https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/histtab19.xlsx

hmcq6 3y ago
> This is percentage of householders who own the home that they are the householder of. It is not. It's a ratio of homeowners in an age group to the number of renter households in that age group, which is kinda a useless statistic. To explain why it's a bad metric take this real (but simplified) example. My roommate and I share a "household". Lets pretend that besides my roommate and I there is only one other person aged 30-34 in the US and they own a home. The Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder chart would say 50%. 1 owner household / 2 total occupied households. Now if you read that chart and take it to mean that there is only 1 homeowner and 1 renter, you would be misunderstanding what the statistics mean. There are more renters than homeowners in our example but the metric doesn't reflect that because it isn't meant to.
- lolinder 3y ago
  This is a fair argument and as late as it is I don't have a reply—you're right that there are limitations that I hadn't considered, and I'll have to look at the numbers more closely to figure out what they mean *. However, I want to note that this represents a sudden change of pace from your original "49% of us are homeowners or renters" and "you've just linked to some statistics that show we can still afford rent". When you misunderstood the situation, you insisted that I "own it" that I was wrong (when I wasn't). It would behoove you to do so yourself instead of pretending you understood the numbers all along. * Edit: as an initial thought, I'd argue that the same argument often applies to the homeowner number—my wife and I jointly owning one house balances out you and your roommate.
  - hmcq6 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- refurb 3y ago
  But the measurement has been constant since the 90's - it hasn't changed. So regardless of the definition, it's remained constant, thus the idea that living arrangements have suddenly and dramatically shifted is not true.
  - light_hue_1 3y ago
    I'm so terribly confused. How can you read this discussion and come to that conclusion? The whole point is that the number being quoted hides the truth. Living arrangements have suddenly and dramatically shifted. For First Time in Modern Era, Living With Parents Edges Out Other Living Arrangements for 18- to 34-Year-Olds: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2016/05/24/for-first-time-in-modern-era-living-with-parents-edges-out-other-living-arrangements-for-18-to-34-year-olds/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2016/05/24/for-fir... Another way to look at it, for the last century until about the year 2000 around 12% of men 24-35 lived with their parents. Now the number is 20%. That's a massive difference. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ad-1.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat...

grfhtsdfvv 3y ago

[flagged]