4 ms·

Old people are 'aging in place' instead of cultivating the new generation and it really, really shows

by nimish 2y ago

ideashower 2y ago
Well said.
crooked-v 2y ago
With that said, a substantial part of that is that every major city in the US has spent decades underbuilding housing, so the smaller homes that urban seniors might otherwise want to downsize to are in very short supply in the first place.
- nimish 2y ago
  yes becaause old people are afraid their house values will go down. now they don't have grandkids and are going to die alone. many such cases
grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
I'm not sure if democracy has the tools to adequately deal with this tbh, at-least in the short-to-medium term. I really hope we can find a way to make voters actually believe an abundant future is possible, and that it'll benefit them and their families. It's the biggest difference I see in societies like China, there's this pervasive optimism about technology, progress and abundance (~700 million people have first hand experience). No idea if they can keep up the growth but we sure won't.
- scoofy 2y ago
  We have the tools, it's just going to be inter-generational warfare, and nobody really wants to say it out loud. The bigger the housing crisis gets, the more people are going to change things on the state level instead of the local level. This isn't a pendulum shifting event, it's a cascade, and that's why Abundance is doing so well, and that's why things are getting ugly on the left.
  - nimish 2y ago
    If old people -- literally or spiritually -- don't voluntarily get out of the way then they must be pushed out forcibly. It won't be pretty I'm afraid; not much else we can do however.
    - grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
      I vote, monetary policy, weapons of mass destruction [1]. At-least have a long term plan for deleveraging residential real estate. Sure that'll suppress construction even further for a while but I'm sure we can get to the other side. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_red_lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_red_lines
  - grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
    On a purely numbers basis the older generation of homeowners far outnumber the young. It's going to take a good while before the balance of power can be shifted. Democracy has the longterm tools for sure, just not for another twenty years or so. Hopefully over time yimby can take hold in some pockets and gradually expand out from those strongholds.
    - scoofy 2y ago
      >On a purely numbers basis the older generation of homeowners far outnumber the young. The point is numbers of voters. There are more young voters now than older voters, this is why we are seeing things change at the state level. Now that many millennials are in there 40's with no real shot at home-ownership it's starting to freak people out. Which is why we will continue to see the YIMBY and Strong Towns movements, not just grow, but accelerate in growth.
      - grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
        I'm not sure how much acceleration we're seeing, do we have numbers on this? Or are voters just becoming disenfranchised? Acceleration is great hope/source of optimism.
- RickS 2y ago
  This is the china of "let it rot"[1] and a housing market so f'd that people felt pressure to buy and pay for houses that didn't even exist yet, leading to a massive mortgage boycott[2] in protest of all the resultant shenanigans? They're already failing to keep up the growth[3], their population pyramid projections are pretty bleak going forward. I agree with you re the need to convince modern western voters of an (actual) abundant future, but china seems like they're not doing so hot either. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_ping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_ping [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_mortgage_boycott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_mortgage_boycott [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_China
  - grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
    All of the above is completely true. But right now they are in the acute/fallout phase of a massive economic disruption (the deleveraging of a highly indebted real estate sector, no less severe than the GFC, they overbuilt to a massive degree). No matter what folks are going to be struggling bad atm. The trillion dollar question is what does this look like in ten years? It could go either way. A Japan style lost decade, or they manage to find and exploit new growth opportunities. I guess we'll see whether having pretty much the cheapest energy on the planet and impressive logistics allows them to get through this. Do not discount the tremendous potential of electrification, and cheap renewable energy.
    - Gareth321 2y ago
      China's population is already declining, and that decline is accelerating. They are projected to lose 100M people by 2050, and 500M by 2075. Given their aversion to immigration, demand will continue to plummet for those unoccupied properties. This is clearly the end of their property boom. This was one of the last options left to ordinary Chinese to build wealth. Their stock market is little more than a slot machine. It is encouraging what we see with their EV boom, but a car industry alone cannot sustain a nation with declining population levels. China has sold so few technological innovations over the decades that I do not see them innovating their way out of this.
- casey2 2y ago
  US democracy is just better at managing perception and allowing controlled opposition. Dissent exists, but it’s channeled into ineffective political battles that don’t threaten the ruling structure. People think they have a say because they can vote, use twitter, get their guy in/out the whitehouse, but real systemic change is nearly impossible. Even now "doge is destroying everything the sky is failing" as they go back to scrolling. China prevents dissent through suppression, while the U.S. redirects it into endless debates that never challenge the underlying system. As a capitalism enjoyer this is good for me, these systems only exist to waste the time of "idealists" and reactionaries. The hands off approach used to be better, but with more technology population control becomes much cheaper, and now all the wasted time from arguing about politics and political decisions becomes a real cost center for the US.
horsawlarway 2y ago
I think this is closer to hitting the truth. I'll add... I think idealizing single family housing as the default, over generational family housing (mostly as a response to industrialization wanting worker movement, and the advent of automobiles) is going to eventually be seen as an unforgivable mistake. And they're all made out of ticky-tacky And they all look just the same
- Analemma_ 2y ago
  I see this take a lot, and I think it has a terribly romanticized and unrealistic rose-colored view of the past. Multi-generational housing suuuuucks, and it’s a near-universal feature of human societies that as soon as people become wealthy enough to vote with their feet and get out of it, they immediately do so, because “multi-generational housing” means constantly having nosy relatives butting into your business, demanding a say in your decisions, and being a downward drag on your life trajectory. People romanticize it if they’ve never experienced it, but in practice everybody hates it.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    It's code for free childcare. Although in the old days the deal was the elderly took care of the kids and in turn the sandwich generation takes care of the elderly. Now the elderly taxes the shit out the sandwich generation, wields housing regulation to enrich themselves, and renegs on giving anything in return because they have you by the balls already paying taxes to them whether any SS is left for you or not.
    - horsawlarway 2y ago
      I want to emphasize - amortized child care and free elder care - it's labor but not capital, and most families have lots of labor to spare that ends up going to leisure/free time right now in ways that probably aren't socially sustainable. I watched all but one of my grandparents go absolutely bankrupt from elder care costs (dementia on one side, alzheimer's on the other), then I watched my parents shell out on the order of 10k/month in long term care costs for years, and that was just their portion of costs, after splitting among siblings (7 total siblings across both sides). The only one who didn't go bankrupt had long term care insurance that you literally cannot buy anymore, at basically any price. So I'll add that expectation to my future payments. Combined with the 4500/m I pay now for child care for 3 children. Not to mention the possibility of 100k/year private education costs as we dissolve federal funding for education in public schools, and see declining school quality in general. All told... I firmly expect to end up housing my elderly parents anyways (and in-laws) because they simply didn't have as many children, and were the first generation to be completely pension-less, combined with what appears to be a truly incompetent admin in the US gutting the last shreds of our social nets and drastically increasing living costs.
Gareth321 2y ago
This is partly why we need to embrace a comprehensive land value tax without exception.

Old people are 'aging in place' instead of cultivating the new generation and it really, really shows

by nimish 2y ago

Old people are 'aging in place' instead of cultivating the new generation and it really, really shows

ideashower 2y ago

Well said.

crooked-v 2y ago

With that said, a substantial part of that is that every major city in the US has spent decades underbuilding housing, so the smaller homes that urban seniors might otherwise want to downsize to are in very short supply in the first place.

nimish 2y ago
yes becaause old people are afraid their house values will go down. now they don't have grandkids and are going to die alone. many such cases

grumpy-de-sre 2y ago

I'm not sure if democracy has the tools to adequately deal with this tbh, at-least in the short-to-medium term. I really hope we can find a way to make voters actually believe an abundant future is possible, and that it'll benefit them and their families. It's the biggest difference I see in societies like China, there's this pervasive optimism about technology, progress and abundance (~700 million people have first hand experience). No idea if they can keep up the growth but we sure won't.

scoofy 2y ago
We have the tools, it's just going to be inter-generational warfare, and nobody really wants to say it out loud. The bigger the housing crisis gets, the more people are going to change things on the state level instead of the local level. This isn't a pendulum shifting event, it's a cascade, and that's why Abundance is doing so well, and that's why things are getting ugly on the left.
- nimish 2y ago
  If old people -- literally or spiritually -- don't voluntarily get out of the way then they must be pushed out forcibly. It won't be pretty I'm afraid; not much else we can do however.
  - grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
    I vote, monetary policy, weapons of mass destruction [1]. At-least have a long term plan for deleveraging residential real estate. Sure that'll suppress construction even further for a while but I'm sure we can get to the other side. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_red_lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_red_lines
- grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
  On a purely numbers basis the older generation of homeowners far outnumber the young. It's going to take a good while before the balance of power can be shifted. Democracy has the longterm tools for sure, just not for another twenty years or so. Hopefully over time yimby can take hold in some pockets and gradually expand out from those strongholds.
  - scoofy 2y ago
    >On a purely numbers basis the older generation of homeowners far outnumber the young. The point is numbers of voters. There are more young voters now than older voters, this is why we are seeing things change at the state level. Now that many millennials are in there 40's with no real shot at home-ownership it's starting to freak people out. Which is why we will continue to see the YIMBY and Strong Towns movements, not just grow, but accelerate in growth.
    - grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
      I'm not sure how much acceleration we're seeing, do we have numbers on this? Or are voters just becoming disenfranchised? Acceleration is great hope/source of optimism.
RickS 2y ago
This is the china of "let it rot"[1] and a housing market so f'd that people felt pressure to buy and pay for houses that didn't even exist yet, leading to a massive mortgage boycott[2] in protest of all the resultant shenanigans? They're already failing to keep up the growth[3], their population pyramid projections are pretty bleak going forward. I agree with you re the need to convince modern western voters of an (actual) abundant future, but china seems like they're not doing so hot either. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_ping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_ping [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_mortgage_boycott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_mortgage_boycott [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_China
- grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
  All of the above is completely true. But right now they are in the acute/fallout phase of a massive economic disruption (the deleveraging of a highly indebted real estate sector, no less severe than the GFC, they overbuilt to a massive degree). No matter what folks are going to be struggling bad atm. The trillion dollar question is what does this look like in ten years? It could go either way. A Japan style lost decade, or they manage to find and exploit new growth opportunities. I guess we'll see whether having pretty much the cheapest energy on the planet and impressive logistics allows them to get through this. Do not discount the tremendous potential of electrification, and cheap renewable energy.
  - Gareth321 2y ago
    China's population is already declining, and that decline is accelerating. They are projected to lose 100M people by 2050, and 500M by 2075. Given their aversion to immigration, demand will continue to plummet for those unoccupied properties. This is clearly the end of their property boom. This was one of the last options left to ordinary Chinese to build wealth. Their stock market is little more than a slot machine. It is encouraging what we see with their EV boom, but a car industry alone cannot sustain a nation with declining population levels. China has sold so few technological innovations over the decades that I do not see them innovating their way out of this.
casey2 2y ago
US democracy is just better at managing perception and allowing controlled opposition. Dissent exists, but it’s channeled into ineffective political battles that don’t threaten the ruling structure. People think they have a say because they can vote, use twitter, get their guy in/out the whitehouse, but real systemic change is nearly impossible. Even now "doge is destroying everything the sky is failing" as they go back to scrolling. China prevents dissent through suppression, while the U.S. redirects it into endless debates that never challenge the underlying system. As a capitalism enjoyer this is good for me, these systems only exist to waste the time of "idealists" and reactionaries. The hands off approach used to be better, but with more technology population control becomes much cheaper, and now all the wasted time from arguing about politics and political decisions becomes a real cost center for the US.

horsawlarway 2y ago

I think this is closer to hitting the truth. I'll add... I think idealizing single family housing as the default, over generational family housing (mostly as a response to industrialization wanting worker movement, and the advent of automobiles) is going to eventually be seen as an unforgivable mistake. And they're all made out of ticky-tacky And they all look just the same

Analemma_ 2y ago
I see this take a lot, and I think it has a terribly romanticized and unrealistic rose-colored view of the past. Multi-generational housing suuuuucks, and it’s a near-universal feature of human societies that as soon as people become wealthy enough to vote with their feet and get out of it, they immediately do so, because “multi-generational housing” means constantly having nosy relatives butting into your business, demanding a say in your decisions, and being a downward drag on your life trajectory. People romanticize it if they’ve never experienced it, but in practice everybody hates it.
- ty6853 2y ago
  It's code for free childcare. Although in the old days the deal was the elderly took care of the kids and in turn the sandwich generation takes care of the elderly. Now the elderly taxes the shit out the sandwich generation, wields housing regulation to enrich themselves, and renegs on giving anything in return because they have you by the balls already paying taxes to them whether any SS is left for you or not.
  - horsawlarway 2y ago
    I want to emphasize - amortized child care and free elder care - it's labor but not capital, and most families have lots of labor to spare that ends up going to leisure/free time right now in ways that probably aren't socially sustainable. I watched all but one of my grandparents go absolutely bankrupt from elder care costs (dementia on one side, alzheimer's on the other), then I watched my parents shell out on the order of 10k/month in long term care costs for years, and that was just their portion of costs, after splitting among siblings (7 total siblings across both sides). The only one who didn't go bankrupt had long term care insurance that you literally cannot buy anymore, at basically any price. So I'll add that expectation to my future payments. Combined with the 4500/m I pay now for child care for 3 children. Not to mention the possibility of 100k/year private education costs as we dissolve federal funding for education in public schools, and see declining school quality in general. All told... I firmly expect to end up housing my elderly parents anyways (and in-laws) because they simply didn't have as many children, and were the first generation to be completely pension-less, combined with what appears to be a truly incompetent admin in the US gutting the last shreds of our social nets and drastically increasing living costs.

Gareth321 2y ago

This is partly why we need to embrace a comprehensive land value tax without exception.