Buying a family-sized home with three or more bedrooms used to be manageable for young people with children. But with home prices climbing faster than wages, mortgage rates still close to 23-year highs and a shortage of homes nationwide, many Millennials with kids can’t afford it. And Gen Z adults w...
Buying a family-sized home with three or more bedrooms used to be manageable for young people with children. But with home prices climbing faster than wages, mortgage rates still close to 23-year highs and a shortage of homes nationwide, many Millennials with kids can’t afford it. And Gen Z adults with kids? Even harder.
Meanwhile, Baby Boomers are staying in their larger homes for longer, preferring to age in place and stay active in a neighborhood that’s familiar to them. And even if they sold, where would they go? There is a shortage of smaller homes in those neighborhoods.
As a result, empty-nest Baby Boomers own 28% of large homes — and Milliennials with kids own just 14%, according to a Redfin analysis released Tuesday. Gen Z families own just 0.3% of homes with three bedrooms or more.
Absolutely, it isn't those boomer parents living in a house for 40 years that are driving up the costs. It's corporations and landlords buying houses as investments so that they can rent them out while the market skyrockets.
Right? Modern medicine is keeping people alive longer, and I'm not going to judge someone for wanting to keep the home they've probably lived in for many years.
I don't rent, but from what I read it's out of control, and corporations buying up homes, putting in the bare minimum to fix up (read: lazy/cheap contractors) and asking way more than it's worth. Now, of course you don't have to pay it, but if everyone is asking overprice, what are people suppose to do?
The reason housing prices are out of control is because investment firms are gobbling them up with cash, yet you’re blaming it on boomers staying in their homes.
Boomers are staying in their homes BECAUSE the housing market is out of control. Stop blaming older people and start blaming Wall Street.
Exactly. Where will they move to? Most older people want to stay in the neighborhood that they grew up in. It's not like an 80 year old will be selling their house in suburban Long Island to find a cheap room in rural Alaska.
This point is literally in the article, almost word for word, and it's being upvoted as a defense of them against this article that's allegedly trying to blame them.
Fucking hell, it never ceases to amaze me that people will be so up in arms against something they didn't even bother to read.
Also blame shit like Silicon Valley for coming up with these new things like Airbnb and not putting it through a proper checkpoint on how it impacts the world. Like surely that could have had some foresight on the housing shortage it was going to cost the moment people got dollar signs in their eyes.
Idgaf about the boomers who want to grow old in the homes they bought. Thats their right as a homeowner. I care about the airbnbs, unskilled flippers, and the corps trying to turn America into a "renters market"
I read the disaster insurance in some states are so outrageous or even unobtainable, so private citizens can’t even get a mortgage (no insurance, no loan) anymore-assuming they could afford one to begin with. The only ones who can afford to outright buy in some places are corporations and foreign interests. It’s fucking trash.
There are so many “boomer bad”, “genx vs millenniall”, “zoomers are lazy” stories lately. Seems like they got tired of just pitting races against each other and moved onto fake generational conflict. This way we don’t notice what the billionaires are doing to all of us. Meanwhile the 5 richest billionaires doubled their net worth.
No, just a writer with nothing to write about. This article is seriously summed up as "omg people are choosing to live in the homes they bought, wtf??!"
My dad was trying to tell me he was a millennial the other day. I tell him "no, you're not", he says he's definitely too young to be a boomer and lists off the boomer birth range.
I just stared at him for a second, before reminding him Gen X exists and he's part of it
Why? They got their house when they were still affordable and there wasn't a shortage. During their time, they could negotiate prices down. They're not the ones being affected by the boomers.
At this point I think gen x is getting conflated with boomers because what people often mean when they say "boomer" is old people. And let's face it, you Xers aren't exactly spring chickens.
Sadly, many can’t move. Retirement homes/communities are sometimes more expensive. Smaller homes cost more or have HOA fees they can’t make work. Most all options have taxes they also can’t make work.
I wish it were as easy as telling them to move but it’s not.
A few years ago my grandparents were in a memory care facility as their health declined. It cost them $18,000 a month to stay there. Adjusting for inflation that's like $22,000 a month.
I'm assuming a large part of that was the full time nursing care to keep Gran's from wandering off into the street looking for Pinkie, their childhood cat in the middle of rush hour (as well as dealing with... you know... making sure they get meds and, eating right, and wiping their ass after, they, uh, ate right.)
Smaller homes cost more or have HOA fees they can’t make work. Most all options have taxes they also can’t make work.
It's pretty insane that America has virtually no supply of inexpensive small homes. It's all about the 2500+ sq-ft behemoths that cost $400,000+.
Even though it's a "worse" deal per sqft I think the market for sub $200,000 homes in the 500-750 sq-ft range would be absolutely booming if it existed.
I know a real estate developer type. (kinda a moron, actually, but he's got a lot of experience in building expensive places to live.)
A comment he made to me once was "Nobody builds low-income housing. a mid-rise luxury condo will only cost a bit more to build than low income apartments, but you make a shitload more"
Missing middle housing would be an even better solution (duplexes, quadraplexes, row houses, and small apartment buildings). Single family houses are an incredibly inefficient use of space and naturally cause greater sprawl, which means more cars and more roads (and consequently more emissions).
Also, even if it were that easy, it's kind of hard to expect someone to leave their home for the greater good. Looking at it from the perspective of society at large it makes logical sense and frames the empty nester as selfish, but when it comes down to the individuals it's kind of hard to blame them, it's their home and they love it and they chose it, why should they choose something else?
In general, large scale, difficult, costly changes done for social good are hard to get off the ground when they rely on large numbers of people choosing to make them and solely for the social good without any other natural motivations.
Really tired of big news companies blaming individuals for industries ruined by the greedy elite, if I can't afford to buy a house, then they can't afford to move houses. My parents wouldn't have a shot in the dark affording a new house.
Sell your 1 million dollar house that you own and pay $6000 on taxes for just to land back on the market and realize that you can afford a small condo for that and a jumbo loan 😜.
Boomers shouldn't have to part with their homes. They, too, need a place to live.
The issue is not Boomers owning the house they live in and refusing to leave it (even if it might be larger than they require)
The issue is in particularly large corporations owning thousands of properties and taking them away from the housing market.
This is a fucking bullshit article. Between Airbnb and filthy scum investment companies buying up homes to rent, actual owners are nowhere near the biggest problem
Stop upvoting shit like this. CNN = Clearly Not News
If you click through to the Business Insider article you can see that it's a misquote. Private investors accounted for 44% of the flips in 2023, not 44% of all single family home purchases total. That's still a problem, but it's a huuuuuge difference. Flips are a small minority of home sales.
Not only are corporations buying up houses to rent, they're actively preventing new houses for purchase from being built through "build to rent" schemes. They use the already scarce construction resources and divert them to building housing with the sole intention of renting them out.
So they're keeping the supply houses available to own down, and then preventing new supply from being created. It's a giant fuck you from corporations and shitty local government for letting it happen.
Not that weird. The corporate media has been pushing this narrative for a while. They realize that younger people don't respond to the old racism or anti-lgbtq. But "evil old boomers are stealing your house/money/whatever" seems to work like a charm. It's just another distraction.
my older in-laws are hoarding all the wealth after grandmother passed and they finagled their way into the inheritance they were not in and inherited the vehicles as well
now we have ask them for anything if we get in a bad way and my side of the family did something similar
with home prices climbing faster than wages, mortgage rates still close to 23-year highs and a shortage of homes nationwide, many Millennials with kids can’t afford it.
There is a shortage of smaller homes in those neighborhoods.
The article mentions both cost and availability as factors.
I agree with most of what you said but that 44% number is wildly wrong.
Article about it
Also, anecdotally, I’ve gone through a couple of houses in hot markets the last 5 years (had to move for work) as both buyer and seller. The vast majority of people looking weren’t corporate or institutions. Most were couples looking for a place to live. Cash buyers above asking are a real thing though and they suuuuuuuck for the poors like myself.
Your right, I shouldn't take my news from Medium headlines. So here's the actual study results from Business Insider.
However the Medium article wasn't wrong. When you have reporting from NYT to CNBC agreeing, and a glorified industry blog splitting hairs as a defense then it's pretty clear what the situation is.
I love this community, seeing through the generational conflict bullshit.
Makes me wonder if the corporate propaganda networks are going to be in trouble because this seems to be one actual generational trend: younger generations don't seem to trust the media like older ones did.
I've seen CNN as basically Fox News but with a different target audience for over a decade now. They can't say as much stupid shit because that audience isn't as dumb as Fox's, but it's pushing the same divide and conquer shit.
I’m shocked! Is this yet another article that tries to blame the average American for the housing market problems instead of residential real estate “investors” buying up all the properties to rent or use as airbnbs?
Or what about the foreign investors who are buying up land and homes with what seems to be zero oversight?
But obviously it’s the boomers who just want to live in the house they bought.
but what about the corporations and foreign entities buying up single family homes?
Fuck them too. Well. lets fuck them first, and then see if that helps. we can hold boomers in the wings.
Actually, who do you think sits on the boards of those hedge funds (blackrock comes to mind,)? it ain't gen z. or millenials. So, yeah. we can still blame boomers.... :)
Boomers should have housing. And we shouldn’t ignore the idiosyncratic attachments that people develop to their homes. Saying “the boomers need to move so I can have a home” is no different than saying “that people group needs to move so my people group has living space.”
We can all have homes. The problem is that the corporations are incentivized to buy residential property and rent it to us. Fuck them.
Around me there are strata neighborhoods (HOA) with 3 bedroom houses with restrictions saying you have to be 55+ years of age to live there. There's no reason other than it makes the housing cheap to purchase for older folks. Younger folk get screwed yet again. There's no reason a 3+ bedroom house should be reserved for older people.
I could understand it if there were handicap accessible bathrooms and whatnot but they are just regular homes. Also many luxury condos with the same restrictions.
One of the big challenges to overcome is update zoning laws. The US relies heavily on outdated Euclidian zoning and it's the root cause of most of the construction trends. We need middle housing but everyone is building five over one multi-family luxury housing.
Building more wont do anything for people that actually want to buy a home. Building more just increases the rental supply for landlords and corporations. There are enough homes built. Nobody is homeless waiting for a house to be built. The current supply needs to be redistributed.
We love to have some nebulous evil "other" group to blame. The only interesting thing is this time instead of skin color or sexual orientation, the target is our own (grand-)parents. Wouldn't have thought that would work as "others".
Ok so we’re trying to blame boomers now for Airbnb now? Cuz there’s more than enough NEW housing that was turned into Airbnb by gobbling firms.
Brian Joseph Chesky (born August 29, 1981) is an American businessman and industrial designer and the co-founder and CEO of Airbnb. Chesky is the 249th richest person in the world according to Forbes, with a net worth of $8.6 billion, mostly due to his ownership of 76 million shares of Airbnb.
Where did Brian Chesky start Airbnb?
San Francisco
Airbnb. In October 2007, the Industrial Designers Society of America was hosting a conference in San Francisco and all hotel rooms were booked. The pair could not afford rent for the month and decided to rent their apartment for money.
You can safely leave the boomers out of that conversation for how the unchecked system was actually broken by a millennial.
Nice to gloss over the fact that home mortgage rates were double what they are now when they were buying them. My boomer parents’ rate was 12% for the majority of their 30-year mortgage (and that was considered great!). We’re trying to get them to move out of their 6 bedroom home I grew up in but they have deep roots where they are and aren’t interested in moving anytime soon.
I’m not a math whiz, but just using an online loan interest calculator, comparing the total cost of the median loan to median salaries for 1990 vs today, that 12% rate still doesn’t make up for the difference in home prices and the stagnating wages young people face today. Seven percent mortgage rate today (which is being generous) compared to 12% yesteryear, at homes that were one quarter of today’s price, with salaries that have grown by barely a third… it just doesn’t add up. I’m not saying your parents are wrong, I’m saying there is something wrong.
That was the entire point of mortgages. You're paying interest, and could end up paying well over the original house value, but over a long enough time period, via inflation and property values increasing, you're still making out ahead of renting. Depending on the mortgage interest rate, you could be better off not paying it off early.
For example, I refinanced my house at 2.6%. Afterwards I started paying extra principal payments. My mother the accountant told me to stop. The interest rate is lower than inflation, I'm better off using the money for other things or putting it into higher yield savings accounts instead of paying it off earlier than schedule.
I’m not disagreeing. It’s worse now. But it’s not nearly as a gulf as they’re trying to make it sound. Remember, 12% was basically rock bottom and not average. I am curious as to what the difference amortized is, just too tired to find the calculator at the moment.
My wife and I are quite well off and don’t want or need their money or property. I’d be happy if they get to the end and just used up the last cent. They’ve earned it!
Why should they have to move? What is this unwritten law that says after 30 years you're required to sell your family home to someone younger? I get that the baby boomer generation has fucked up a lot, but I don't see why anyone should have to silently pack their belongings and shuffle off to a nursing home just because Junior wants his first big boy house...
They have got you chasing a red herring by being obsessed with the age of people instead of their beliefs. There are reactionary fascists in all age groups, new young generations of fascists are being hatched right as we speak. It isn't the age of the individual which perpetuates it, there are far more wide reaching factors involved.
My parents live in Texas and I live in WA. They say they wish they could afford to live closer to me, but based on their actions it seems like they value having a big piece of real estate more than they value being close to me.
Or maybe they're happy living where they've lived for so long, in a big comfortable property, rather than uproot everything they've known to live close to you with no guarantee that you'll visit regularly and not move again for another job.
They haven't lived in their house very long, they have virtually no community connections there, they don't like it much, and it's pretty obvious that I'm not planning another cross country move ever.
And where is it suggested boomers should live? My MIL has a paid-for home, but is now in assisted living. It costs 6K a month, which is eating through her savings at a shocking rate, even though we're paying a portion of her AL rent.
If she had the ability to stay home, you better believe she would, because she can't afford to part with her home.
I don't mean to sound insensitive, but I'm genuinely curious: your MIL is in expensive assisted living yet still owns a home she's no longer living in? Wouldn't the move here be to sell the home now with housing prices so high, and use the profits from it to fund the assisted living expenses?
I wrote out a very angry reply, but as often happens, as I cooled down and reflected, it was 100% the result of this enormously clickbait title, not the article itself.
The article itself DOES mention the mortgage rates, and it DOES acknowledge that Boomers might be willing to move out (in direct contradiction to its own title) but cannot bc of a shortage of affordable smaller homes, the same as everyone else.
In short, Boomers are trapped too - again it's not that they "won't" so much as they "can't" - even if sitting better in a home that they (hopefully) own rather than having to rent.
There is simply no excuse for such a rage-baiting, purposefully combative title.:-( Maybe we need to start using AI to generate new titles to replace those profit-mongering ones? :-)
Rules can change, but mainly I mean that we need to be the change we want to see in the world. e.g. maybe not even allow articles labeled as "news" that are meant only to distract our attention away from corporations' profit margins, being written by conservative right-wing propaganda arms of the media such as [checks notes] "CNN". Well... shit.
Thank you for the thanks, and sorry that someone is downvoting you even for saying that much. At this point I think I'll start wearing my downvotes as a matter of pride just like on ole Reddit. I would very much like it if the Fediverse would be cleaner and nicer than where we left, so indeed that starts with myself.:-)
Heaping ever increasing taxes on the elderly doesn't sound ideal either tbh.
Imagine having to give up your home because your neighbours property value increased and thus your taxes went up due to the increased value of your home. Sure you could sell away your life and move into a smaller building in a different part of the country (or worse, a retirement home), but should we advocate for people to lose their homes when a better solution is for government to build more affordable housing for people?
Imagine giving immortal corporations a property tax based on 1976 prices plus a maximum annual increase of 2% instead of just granting an exception to property taxes for your primary residence. Imagine leaving your grandkids with no money to run a government because you're that fucking dumb and greedy. Fuck the boomers, I hope the PG&E bills to cool their giant homes fucking bury them.
I've moved 8 times in the last 15 years so I can't say I feel too bad about the idea of people "losing" their home by selling it and moving somewhere smaller.
The point is, this is entirely your fault and we hate you and go die. In a hole preferably, so we don't have to hear you moan about needing social security and medicare.
Sorry... are you under the absolute bizarre impression that because I linked to two articles that quote what Republicans say, I am saying those two sources are Republican?
As for CNN... who just hosted a pointless Republican debate?
Not sure how common this is nationally, but around here it's also common for the older generation to maintain two properties a "home" in the city/metro area near their kids or grandkids and a "cabin" which is literally a second home somewhere else.
I think it'd be great to give up the home in the metro and downsize to a condo or apartment, but that's just me.
My 90 year old grandmother refuses to go to a nursing home (and honestly I can’t blame her) and actually just blew a ton of money getting her home remodeled. She has no plans to leave until she passes away, at which point the house will go to my father who has plans to sell it.
Meanwhile, my wife and I barely make the median income amount and, at 36, we’re never going to be able to afford a home.
I bought my first house in 2010, during the last dip in the housing market. Sold every asset I could for the down payment and end up with a mortgage payment I could afford. The value of the home has since increased 3x from when I bought it; I couldn't afford to buy the place today, let alone move someplace else. My major source of frustration has been property taxes, which now cost 1.5x more than my mortgage payment. I'm not entirely certain I'll be able to STAY in this place if they keep going up 20%/year like they have been.
Somewhat similar here. Bought in 2011, with housing prices still depressed by the 2008 crash. Since then, we've put a good bit of money into the place (it needed work, still does). We also have kids now, so the space is really nice to have. The house now appraises for 2.5-3x what we spent for it, which is not justified by the money we've spent on it and is mostly driven by the market going nuts. While we might be able to swing the mortgage, were we to be buying the place now, it'd be very tight. Also, there's just no incentive to move. The local schools are good. The neighborhood is nice, I work from home (wife doesn't work), so there is no commute. We know and like our neighbors and regularly have neighborhood BBQs in the cul-de-sac.. Sure, when the kids are gone, we might consider a smaller home further out, with more land and less neighbors. But more likely, we're just going to keep putting money and effort into this house and let the kids drag our desiccated corpses out of the place.
Baby Boomers, Millenials, amd Gen Z account for.. 42% of homes.
Classic Gen X erasure aside... I have doubt Gen X owns the remaining 58% today. The article does mention 18% of gen X owned 10 years ago. And I am doubtful the Silent Generation is still clinging to their numbers.
And so under the most charitable interpretation: that is still a 20% gap of ownership by what I can only assume is a business enterprise.
This article is cherry picking numbers from a Redfin study. It says 28% empty-nest Boomers vs 14% Millennials with kids. Together those two subsets own 42% of large homes (3+ bedrooms). So that doesn't account for elder GenZ, Millennials without kids, all of GenX, and any boomers that don't count as "empty-nest" for whatever reason. It's not half corps like everyone keeps saying.
Yeah my husband laughed at me when I said I wanted to move to this neighborhood because when I walked the dog I saw all these truly ancient people mowing their lawns, and figured:
People like it here enough to stay till they die
There would be a bunch of houses for sale when those owners died.
but he sure loves it here now. One day we will be those ancient people.
I think inheritance is one of the evils in the world. Why should I have something because my parents did? It focuses and increases inequality. Not saying you are wrong in the world we currently live in, and I know it's too complicated to implement but I wish wealth was distributed out when people died. So we could start on a more even playing field.
This isn’t the ‘Boomers’ fault. It’s large corporate property portfolios vacuuming up houses and land to take in the lovely extortion… uh…‘rent’ monies.
Hmm. In my opinion it's preferable if the boomers keep their houses so their children can inherit the value.
Where I live, it's a bigger issue that boomers sell their houses too cheap to companies that demolish the house to build apartments. The boomers then waste the money on renting overpriced apartments for the rest of their life.
I get that it's difficult to maintain a house as you grow older and these houses are usually not well maintained, but they're really just pissing their value away.
We don't have a shortage of houses where I live. We have a shortage of affordable houses. Luxury rental apartments too small for families won't help that. They're basically removing properties and increasing the prices on the market. Instead of being able to pay X amount of money to a mortgage people can now pay the same amount for renting only part of it.
Boomers are the largest private owners of homes, even more than actual corporations that are actively buying and raising housing prices in order to pad their books.
The only way out of this is a financial collapse and that will end up killing millions before the market actually reaches a reasonable price and rate.
I don't want this but this seems to be the direction the current macroeconomic conditions are heading.
2024-2028 are going to be some of the most shitty years in human history
2024-2028 are going to be some of the most shitty years in human history
I doubt that. Compare your modern life of general comfort to the lives that human beings lived just 200 years ago. I'd much rather live in 2024 America than 1800s America.