7 ms·

> Most people can afford a home here. Correction, most people have been able to afford a home in the past in the US. Homes used to be affordable, now they are

> Most people can afford a home here. Correction, most people have been able to afford a home in the past in the US. Homes used to be affordable, now they aren’t.

throwawaysleep 2y ago
Gen Z is becoming homeowners at a record pace: https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/21/gen-z-ahead-of-millennials-and-their-parents-in-owning-their-own-homes/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/21/ge...
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  Record pace for only the last two generations: > Roughly 30% of 25-year-olds in 2022—the oldest of the Gen Z (born between 1997 to 2013)—owned their home in 2022, a slightly higher percentage than the 28% of Millennials (born between 1981 to 1996) who owned homes at that age and the 27% of Gen Xers (born between 1965 and 1980)—but lower than the rate for Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964), 32% of whom owned homes at age 25.
  - formerly_proven 2y ago
    I'll be honest, how is it physically possible for a 25yo to own a home?
    - acdha 2y ago
      Family wealth is the most common. That doesn’t mean “mommy and daddy gave me a house” as often as it means things like living rent-free on your parents’ property so you can save money, having them co-sign a loan, or cash gifts helping with the down payment. The other thing is remembering that cost of living varies significantly. Even 25yo FAANG engineers struggle in San Francisco but there are other parts of the country where someone with middle class income can buy if they live modestly and are thinking along the lines of a basic condo in a non-luxury neighborhood.
    - quickthrowman 2y ago
      It’s possible if your parents give you money (living at home for free to save counts in my book), otherwise it’s a pipe dream.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    32%->27%->28%->30% appear to be just rounding errors, especially considering the number of individuals concerned. If anything, such numbers indicate to me that homeownership rates haven't meaningfully changed and the only thing that did change is the advent of noisey narratives.
    - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
      > appear to be just rounding errors, especially considering the number of individuals concerned Isn't it in fact the opposite? The bigger population, the easier to find a significant signal? Those are variances of millions of people. We wouldn't treat a 5% swing in unemployment as a rounding error, would we?
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        >We wouldn't treat a 5% swing in unemployment as a rounding error, would we? If unemployment keeps hovering around 29% +/-3% over basically a century, that variance is a rounding error.
        acdha 2y ago
        > If unemployment keeps hovering around 30% +/-5% over basically a century, that is in fact a rounding error. “rounding error” isn’t typically used to describe double-digit percentage changes. You might say within normal variation but it’s a significant change and, ignoring the fact that those numbers are much greater than the actual unemployment rate, it’s well over the measurement precision and real shifts of millions of people are going to be scrutinized.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        >“rounding error” isn’t typically used to describe double-digit percentage changes. What? We're talking about a 5 percentage points variance, that is a single digit percentage point change. This is regarding a 29 percentage points average over a span of like 80 years concerning millions if not billions of people. That is a rounding error, whether it's home ownership or unemployment or whatever you want those numbers to be.

> Most people can afford a home here. Correction, most people have been able to afford a home in the past in the US. Homes used to be affordable, now they aren’t.

throwawaysleep 2y ago

Gen Z is becoming homeowners at a record pace: https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/21/gen-z-ahead-of-millennials-and-their-parents-in-owning-their-own-homes/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/21/ge...

SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
Record pace for only the last two generations: > Roughly 30% of 25-year-olds in 2022—the oldest of the Gen Z (born between 1997 to 2013)—owned their home in 2022, a slightly higher percentage than the 28% of Millennials (born between 1981 to 1996) who owned homes at that age and the 27% of Gen Xers (born between 1965 and 1980)—but lower than the rate for Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964), 32% of whom owned homes at age 25.
- formerly_proven 2y ago
  I'll be honest, how is it physically possible for a 25yo to own a home?
  - acdha 2y ago
    Family wealth is the most common. That doesn’t mean “mommy and daddy gave me a house” as often as it means things like living rent-free on your parents’ property so you can save money, having them co-sign a loan, or cash gifts helping with the down payment. The other thing is remembering that cost of living varies significantly. Even 25yo FAANG engineers struggle in San Francisco but there are other parts of the country where someone with middle class income can buy if they live modestly and are thinking along the lines of a basic condo in a non-luxury neighborhood.
  - quickthrowman 2y ago
    It’s possible if your parents give you money (living at home for free to save counts in my book), otherwise it’s a pipe dream.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  32%->27%->28%->30% appear to be just rounding errors, especially considering the number of individuals concerned. If anything, such numbers indicate to me that homeownership rates haven't meaningfully changed and the only thing that did change is the advent of noisey narratives.
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    > appear to be just rounding errors, especially considering the number of individuals concerned Isn't it in fact the opposite? The bigger population, the easier to find a significant signal? Those are variances of millions of people. We wouldn't treat a 5% swing in unemployment as a rounding error, would we?
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >We wouldn't treat a 5% swing in unemployment as a rounding error, would we? If unemployment keeps hovering around 29% +/-3% over basically a century, that variance is a rounding error.
      - acdha 2y ago
        > If unemployment keeps hovering around 30% +/-5% over basically a century, that is in fact a rounding error. “rounding error” isn’t typically used to describe double-digit percentage changes. You might say within normal variation but it’s a significant change and, ignoring the fact that those numbers are much greater than the actual unemployment rate, it’s well over the measurement precision and real shifts of millions of people are going to be scrutinized.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        >“rounding error” isn’t typically used to describe double-digit percentage changes. What? We're talking about a 5 percentage points variance, that is a single digit percentage point change. This is regarding a 29 percentage points average over a span of like 80 years concerning millions if not billions of people. That is a rounding error, whether it's home ownership or unemployment or whatever you want those numbers to be.