4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThis 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 agoBut 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 agoI'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...
- refurb 3y agoMan, those are wide age bands. Big difference from more 19 year olds living at home versus 34 year olds. And flip that statistic, the percentage not living at home went from 80% to 68%. Significant? Sure. Massive? Doesn’t seem like it. And looking at home ownership rates for those under 35 years old, historically - its not that much lower, maybe a 10% relative drop. So sure, fewer young people owning homes, but it’s <10% relative change. That doesn’t scream crisis to me. The vast majority of young people own homes similar to the past.
- Izkata 3y ago> Man, those are wide age bands. Big difference from more 19 year olds living at home versus 34 year olds. But it's a consistent measurement. You're the one that said that further up.
- refurb 3y agoThe fact it's a constant measure is irrelevant to my comment that 18 to 34 is a huge age band. A college student deciding to live at home is very different than a mid-career 30-something deciding to live at home.
- splitstud 3y ago[dead]