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.
As usual, no mention of Gen X.
the ninja generation
listen close, theyre around here somewhere…
You know, I hate the joke, but it seems to have a special place in their heart…
How do you know someone is Gen X? Well, you don’t really care, but they’ll tell you anyways.
They are all vegan?
Found the person who enjoys unoriginal jokes.
Says that very person
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.
deleted by creator
I don’t think they’re blaming them, just explaining why they aren’t mentioned in this scenario
deleted by creator
They’re not the ones being affected by the boomers.
My dude, they’ve been riding us our whole lives
They were mentioned at least once
Gen Xers were 42 to 57
And then… crickets.
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.
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.
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.
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).
“Shortage of homes” created by a parasitic class of people and corporations who gobble up all the available homes
deleted by creator
Baby boomers aren’t, but capitalists are.
They’re the ones who gobble up all available real estate to manipulate everyone else with for their own benefit.
I assume that was Karashta’s intent, not Baby boomers as you deflected to.
The plan was that they sell their home and downsize into an easier to maintain condo.
deleted by creator
It existed 15 years ago, when millennials were starting to move out of their parents’ home.
They can go rent the places everyone else is currently forced to because of their generational bullshit.
It ain’t the boomers doing that. It’s the corporations.
And who runs those corporations?
Rich out of touch assholes ranging from Boomers, Gen X and millennials?
They trying to distract us. I aint looking at the single home owning boomers, its landlords and corporate real estate companies hoarding homes.
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.
Yeah this needs more of an upvote, take a THIS
Mostly, you’re right, IMO. But these same people will vote against affordable housing being built near them… “Not in my backyard!”
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?
I’m all for blaming boomers, but what about the corporations and foreign entities buying up single family homes?
You can’t blame corporations. Lobbyists passed a law against that.
Media doing everything they can to keep people fighting each other rather than the owner class…
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.
That’s a fair point, if you’re among those who don’t wait the length of time for an entire generation to come of age and two thirds of your loan period to pass before you get to see lower interest rates. Between the late 70s and early 80s there was a steep rise in mortgage rates, but this quickly dropped off and returned to early 1970s rates. Rates stayed mostly constant from then until the 2000s when they began to drop off, reaching a near once-in-a-lifetime historic low just a few years ago.
Wages haven’t risen with inflation to allow others to reap the benefits of buying in and waiting for their property values to soar. And the topic in this particular thread isn’t renting vs buying. The original commenter stated that the article didn’t consider their parents’ 12% mortgage rate. This specific discussion is about whether holding onto a 12% loan for thirty years at a starting 1990 salary is equivalent to today’s rate with today’s prices at today’s salary—and it’s not.
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.
That’s not true though. The average 30-year fixed rate in 1990 was a little over 10%.
Why are you assuming it was the 90s?
The age range of millennials, the age of boomers, the idea that a forever long-term home is likely a second or third home purchase, your statement that you grew up in that house and are presumably a millennial. What year are we talking then? Average rates were level ‘85-90 in the 10% range, dropping after that.
I didn’t say I was a millennial. You make a lot of assumptions.
I’d say “some,” not a lot. And I’d also qualify them as reasonable assumptions given the article content and your original comment. But regardless, you agree things are worse now, and to the people who can’t afford homes, being in a situation that’s only a bit worse rather than impossibly worse could be a meaningless distinction. As I said, your parents are not the problem just because they want to stay in their home, but there is a problem.
Sounds like someone is worried about “their” inheritance.
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!
deleted by creator
It’s extra fucked in California because the boomers passed a law to set property taxes at the time of purchase and only allow for small increases over the years. Rising home prices don’t have corresponding rising taxes so the old farts are never priced out of their huge empty houses.
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?
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.
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…
I agree, but it sure would be nice if boomers did something good for once.
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.
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? :-)
I’m here to say thank you for keeping your cool on the internet despite the clickbait and somewhat ragebait headline.
This definitely helps make the Fediverse a nicer place.
One of the rules of this community is you must use the same title for your post as the news article title.
So now we have quite a few clickbait & ragebait titles, because that’s what the corps are doing. Pretty dumb rule, IMO.
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.
Yes, some kind of minimum standard would be good.
On piefed.social there are over 3000 domains that cannot be linked to, including all the alt-right propaganda ones. Brietbart, Russia Today, etc. I wouldn’t go as far as including CNN in that list though.
To clarify: I was being mostly tongue-in-cheek on that part. Most of the time you do not associate “CNN” with “right-wing propaganda”, as while it may not be entirely unbiased it does not lie so far on the spectrum as to deserve that label of “propaganda”. Or at least it has not been that way in the past?
The cussing at the end though was to indicate my absolute surprise at finding that this article is now contributing towards its inching closer to earning that distinction though. Or at least the title of this article accomplishes that effect, even though the content itself does not. Also, I noticed that this is not an “opinion” piece, nor at the end do they have a disclaimer that the views of the author may not necessarily reflect that of the journal - so this seems fully supported by the editorial staff at CNN Business?
Fwiw, I wonder if they even care which political direction it pushes people towards - so long as it makes people angry, their profits increase by people clicking on it?
Ofc I agree that CNN Business is not as far advanced along the propaganda spectrum as those others you listed (in those, the content itself would be biased as well)… but neither is CNN Business unbiased either, apparently. Just look at how many incendiary words & phrases are used - they “won’t part” (like a toddler holding a toy?), the direct interpretation that “that’s a problem”, the “think of the children” tactic, not calling them “Generation Baby Boomer” or some such but the almost pejorative these days “Boomers”, and using right out of the gate as almost a verb like BOOM those old farts did another thing again, now click to find out why you should be angry!? (which itself, like propaganda tends to do, implies the never-ending NOW that is all that is assumed to ever matter to the reader, not “this is happening lately” or “there is a trend showing up recently”, but “[THEY] WON’T PART”, as if that stage will continue forever without some inertia-stopping force to stop this “problem for young families” - a force that will demand ACTION? which btw is what drives the urge to click the article, b/c otherwise mere information delivery could allow someone to read the title and move on with their lives, but no, this article must be CLICKED, IMMEDIATELY!) Later, the article itself softens this heavy pushing of phrases considerably - e.g. note the switch inside to now “Baby Boomers”, and putting transition words in front of it to shift the focus away from them and more on the nature of the underlying transitioning effect itself (e.g. “Meanwhile, Baby Boomers…”, as in a process that is currently underway, over the course of some period of time, rather than the “BOOMERS WON’T PART” in more active, and urgent, voice).
So… from the title alone, it sure looks an awful lot like propaganda to me? I hope to see less of this from CNN Business in the future, but if instead I see more then I will have to update my view on where they stand on that spectrum. Again, at least in reference to their titles as separate from the actual article content.
Thank you for this chance to vent btw, and your perspective does help clarify matters.:-)
Yes, great analysis.
Someone on fedi somewhere recently said “if the article makes you scared or angry, you’re probably being manipulated”.
It sounds like a fantastic rule of thumb. To be fair, it is REALLY hard to make use of language in a way that engenders zero emotional response on behalf of the recipient - and why would you want to even?
Unfortunately, when that emotional response later turns into disappointment after learning that it was fake, you develop a pattern of distrusting whomever it was that made you feel that way. Which at this point is almost EVERY major corporation, especially the formerly “news” ones?!
e.g., I recall feeling sick upon learning that Donald Trump had sex with a 14-year-old (at the time) girl. Even though I was being, um… “encouraged” to feel that way… I do not regret that emotion, nor distrust who sold me that story, to the extent that those facts are accurate? (based on her own testimony, which she said she was willing to swear to in a court of law, and she provided details that supposedly were corroborated, at least enough to place her at one of those parties, yes run by Epstein, where that occurred - e.g. there was an actual photo of her + DT standing together iirc; which I note that even if she faked a portion of the story, the news media source itself seems like they had done their due diligence at that point)
Whereas for the OP article I feel far more “betrayed”, by its title, seeking to place blame solely onto baby boomers who are stuck in their giant empty homes due to the mortgage rates & housing availability situation - which they themselves may not feel is optimal (higher costs of heating / cooling for one) - rather than on the real sources that are causing the actual “problems” that the title alluded to. But live & learn - and from now on I will know to heavily distrust any article coming forth from CNN, which I find so incredibly sad, but like the housing crisis itself, is simply the unfortunate truth nowadays:-(.
Fortunately it’s not quite as bad as Brietbart, at least not yet…:-(
Yeah, it’s tricky. There is a point where a headline becomes deceiving and it’s very hard to pinpoint where that is. I like your AI idea and will do some experiments along those lines.
Eventually they will
This post is a load of horse shit.
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.
And it’s not like new houses haven’t been built since grandpa bought his house.
And it’s not like there isn’t people benefitting now on a housing shortage caused by Airbnb buying up all that new housing.
Blaming boomers for corrupt Airbnb for this is a desperate reach.
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.
They trying to distract us. I aint looking at the single home owning boomers, its landlords and corporate real estate companies hoarding homes.
Gee, boomers are being selfish! Who would have guessed?
