Housing and young people – why is this not a solution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your "solution" to the housing crisis is for all kids to attend college, graduate and immediately make $100k, live with their parents until they are 30, and save half a million dollars?

You're a genius, OP. A real policy savant. Where should we mail your Nobel Prize?

Care to tackle peace in the middle east next? I'm sure you can come up with a solution - perhaps set a specific date and time for everyone to drop their weapons and sing Kumbaya?

There is no "housing crisis" only an entitlement mentality crisis. People seem to believe that they have a right to live wherever they want regardless of whether they can afford it. The world does not owe you anything and this mentality does nothing to help someone afford a house. The people that complain about housing affordability are the same people that pass numerous policies that actively worsen what they are complaining about, retroactive building performance/energy efficiency standards, costly building code updates, bond initiates for "affordably housing (which make housing less affordable by increasing property taxes). I don't want to hear from these people anymore. The only objective of density bros and the "housing crisis" crazies is to force everyone else to live in high density micro apartments. They are all front groups for developers and the real estate lobby and these industries will gladly destroy communities as long as it maximizes their profits

Working hard HS-----> college ------> workforce over the span of 10-15 years and wanting to afford a home (even a "regular" non-Mansion home) is not an entitlement mentality. It is what the American Dream promises and has delivered pretty reliably until recent years. Now kids work hard, or harder, and will receive/see less of a payoff in terms of home, retirement, etc. than the generations before them.

And that sucks to realize. They're angry and rightfully so. But it isn't "entitlement" so stop throwing that word around.

Peoples expectations are not realistic anymore. In 1950, the average new construction SFH was only 958 feet and the average household size was around 3.5 people (274 sq ft per person). The average size of a new construction SFH in 2023 was 2,469 sq feet and the average household size was 2.6 people (950 sq feet per person). The average sq ft per household member today is 3.46 times larger than in 1950. So of course home are less affordable when people expect to have 3x more space per person compared to recent history. Even for the more affordable condo units people have come to expect 600-800sq ft for a one bedroom unit when it could easily have 2 bedrooms or more. Most people don’t want to buy small units with multiple bedrooms anymore so developers don’t build them frequently.

No one having this problem was alive in 1950. Only some of their parents were. So what’s your point?

In 1875, most houses didn’t have electricity or running water. Even many mansions had cisterns with a rudimentary pipe system but no flushing toilets. That would be another way to get construction costs down, but all these entitled Millennials want electricity AND running water. And internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DS graduated from college two years ago and has been living at home. He is currently looking to move out with a roommate this summer. They plan on renting an apartment. Almost all of my DS' friends who grew up in the DMV and are working in the DMV are all living at home saving money, but several are now starting to move out. His friends who moved here for work have all told him they think it's great that he's been able to save money for a couple of years. My DS started at $85K and is currently making $95K. He has a degree in Data Analytics and works for a government contractor.

In two years, my DS has maxed out his 401K and it is close to $50K. He has also saved over $50K - putting in a high savings account and the stock market. He is responsible for his own auto insurance and cell phone. We charge him a nominal amount for rent - basically what I'm spending on buying food for him.

As far as house rules, we just ask that he be a respectful "roommate." He is responsible for his own laundry. He lets me know what nights he'll be home for dinner so I make sure I have enough for him to eat. He gives us an approximate time of when he'll be home - not because he has a curfew but I don't want to be up worrying that he's been in an accident when he hasn't gotten home. DS has not had a girlfriend since he's been home so we haven't had to deal with overnight guests. He has had good friends come over to watch sports and we give them lots of space. I know he really wants to have a party but he feels weird having casual friends come to "mommy and daddy's house."

It's been great having him home but he needs to move out. He has built a really good nest egg and is really ready to finally be on his own.

Gee Beav that’s swell. Not really. So a mid twenties guy has no dating no prospect of dating and you think that’s not stunted because he lives with his Mommy?

[Anonymous]

When I moved to DC after graduation in 2010, I knew almost no one who had grown up in the DMV and had parents nearby to live with. Everyone had moved there from somewhere else. We also weren’t making 100k salaries, think less than half that. Somehow we all managed by living in group houses and not having cars (why a car in DC?)

The key for me and DH was not having student loans more than anything else and getting on the property ladder early, way before kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived at home till 29. I grew up a 25 minute train ride to Manhattan. Did I save money?

Nope. But between 23 and 29 spent 100 weekend in the Hamptons and around 12 weeks of vacation time.

Went on 20 ski trips, went on 7 spring breaks. Went on around 400 dates, went out to bars and clubs, 1,000 times, has a Jeep wrangler, and a muscle car. Also went to Final Four twice, Olympics. Football Games, concerts.

I did not have apartment as would eat into my fin money. Plus I spend 70-100
nights sleeping elsewhere.

You see me LA, Miami, Aspen, Hamptons, NYC. If anything I wish I spent more.

Having a single person live home he will just spend more.

That's because you screwed up and didn't save.

Actually, I moved out at 29 as during one of my thousands of nights out was a passenger in a car crash and won a lawsuit. Put 25 percent down on a condo and bought a Mercedes.
I actually ended up with same amount of money if saved every cent. No morale to the story.

So live at home, spend all your money partying, end up getting seriously injured in an accident, and Bam, you've got your downpayment. Of course everyone should try this

Yes!! Actually I got my condo in a bank foreclosure and sold it for a big profit to buy first home.

BTW savings is stupid in certain cases. My wives good friend a decent looking blonde good figure has a net worth of 10k when 26. She decided to invest the 10k into a share in a small dumpy tiny Hamptons house and all new clothes, make up. Her plan she has 16 weekends to marry rich. She met a trader on Wall Street week 6 got married and is a multi millionaire no pre nup.

Saving sadly is stupid most young women. Men are stupid. Very stupid. The girl in shape, going on vacations driving a mustang convertible with great clothes with zero in bank a rich guy will take over a poorly dressed girl living at home taking the bus with $100k in the bank.

And works me to want to marry rich look good!! Dumpy costs you money in long run when single.

100 percent of wife’s friends who were hot and went out when single married to multimillionaires. The savers all married deadbeat men who saw their pot of cash and worked like dogs all their lives.

Look at Lauren Sanchez she has billion dollar boobs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does dating work though when you live at home? My parents were crazy and I had a 10pm curfew, midnight on weekends (I lived at my parent's home in the summer during my internships). I also would never have been allowed to bring someone home to stay the night, even a long term boyfriend.

I think it's much better to live with roommates. We split cheap apartments with 3-5 other people.

Gen-Xer here. Yes, that’s my question too! When I was in my 20’s I was dating different people and would be mortified to bring them back to my parents house to spend the night. My parents were also not so laid back to have me sleeping over at boy’s houses if I lived with them. So bye bye sex life I guess. I’m glad I didn’t miss out on that and also on the fun times living in DC with my friends from college.

Those were some of the best years of my life which wouldn’t be quite so good if I lived with my folks!

[Anonymous]

My parents literally up and moved to a rural area that I would never want to live (and has no high paying jobs) while I was in college. Remote jobs weren’t a thing back in the early oughts and even today with more flexibility new grad hires aren’t often being offered a six figure job with ability to work fully remote.

I just can’t believe OP actually woke up and typed these words straight from their @$s.

Also many of the UMC DCUM types OP references are helping their kids with down payments. So this plan does nothing to help the people really struggling with housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your "solution" to the housing crisis is for all kids to attend college, graduate and immediately make $100k, live with their parents until they are 30, and save half a million dollars?

You're a genius, OP. A real policy savant. Where should we mail your Nobel Prize?

Care to tackle peace in the middle east next? I'm sure you can come up with a solution - perhaps set a specific date and time for everyone to drop their weapons and sing Kumbaya?

There is no "housing crisis" only an entitlement mentality crisis. People seem to believe that they have a right to live wherever they want regardless of whether they can afford it. The world does not owe you anything and this mentality does nothing to help someone afford a house. The people that complain about housing affordability are the same people that pass numerous policies that actively worsen what they are complaining about, retroactive building performance/energy efficiency standards, costly building code updates, bond initiates for "affordably housing (which make housing less affordable by increasing property taxes). I don't want to hear from these people anymore. The only objective of density bros and the "housing crisis" crazies is to force everyone else to live in high density micro apartments. They are all front groups for developers and the real estate lobby and these industries will gladly destroy communities as long as it maximizes their profits

Working hard HS-----> college ------> workforce over the span of 10-15 years and wanting to afford a home (even a "regular" non-Mansion home) is not an entitlement mentality. It is what the American Dream promises and has delivered pretty reliably until recent years. Now kids work hard, or harder, and will receive/see less of a payoff in terms of home, retirement, etc. than the generations before them.

And that sucks to realize. They're angry and rightfully so. But it isn't "entitlement" so stop throwing that word around.

Peoples expectations are not realistic anymore. In 1950, the average new construction SFH was only 958 feet and the average household size was around 3.5 people (274 sq ft per person). The average size of a new construction SFH in 2023 was 2,469 sq feet and the average household size was 2.6 people (950 sq feet per person). The average sq ft per household member today is 3.46 times larger than in 1950. So of course home are less affordable when people expect to have 3x more space per person compared to recent history. Even for the more affordable condo units people have come to expect 600-800sq ft for a one bedroom unit when it could easily have 2 bedrooms or more. Most people don’t want to buy small units with multiple bedrooms anymore so developers don’t build them frequently.

The late 40s/early 50s saw some of the smallest housing constructed. The average new house before and after that period was significantly bigger. Not as big as today, but using 1950 as some kind of ideal is misleading. The combination of the Great Depression, WWII and the baby boom saw a massive housing crunch and builders were building as fast as they could and pumped out as many of the smallest houses as they could.

[Anonymous]

Haven’t read the whole thing but this idea only helps the children of UMC families that can already afford the DMV - not the young people (like myself and spouse and most I know) whose parents live in other parts of the country with minimal job prospects. We moved here in the early 2000s and lived in group houses but those don’t seem as widely available anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your "solution" to the housing crisis is for all kids to attend college, graduate and immediately make $100k, live with their parents until they are 30, and save half a million dollars?

You're a genius, OP. A real policy savant. Where should we mail your Nobel Prize?

Care to tackle peace in the middle east next? I'm sure you can come up with a solution - perhaps set a specific date and time for everyone to drop their weapons and sing Kumbaya?

There is no "housing crisis" only an entitlement mentality crisis. People seem to believe that they have a right to live wherever they want regardless of whether they can afford it. The world does not owe you anything and this mentality does nothing to help someone afford a house. The people that complain about housing affordability are the same people that pass numerous policies that actively worsen what they are complaining about, retroactive building performance/energy efficiency standards, costly building code updates, bond initiates for "affordably housing (which make housing less affordable by increasing property taxes). I don't want to hear from these people anymore. The only objective of density bros and the "housing crisis" crazies is to force everyone else to live in high density micro apartments. They are all front groups for developers and the real estate lobby and these industries will gladly destroy communities as long as it maximizes their profits

Working hard HS-----> college ------> workforce over the span of 10-15 years and wanting to afford a home (even a "regular" non-Mansion home) is not an entitlement mentality. It is what the American Dream promises and has delivered pretty reliably until recent years. Now kids work hard, or harder, and will receive/see less of a payoff in terms of home, retirement, etc. than the generations before them.

And that sucks to realize. They're angry and rightfully so. But it isn't "entitlement" so stop throwing that word around.

Peoples expectations are not realistic anymore. In 1950, the average new construction SFH was only 958 feet and the average household size was around 3.5 people (274 sq ft per person). The average size of a new construction SFH in 2023 was 2,469 sq feet and the average household size was 2.6 people (950 sq feet per person). The average sq ft per household member today is 3.46 times larger than in 1950. So of course home are less affordable when people expect to have 3x more space per person compared to recent history. Even for the more affordable condo units people have come to expect 600-800sq ft for a one bedroom unit when it could easily have 2 bedrooms or more. Most people don’t want to buy small units with multiple bedrooms anymore so developers don’t build them frequently.

This 1000%

In the 70s people lived in 3 bed/1 bath homes of 1000 sq ft. If lucky you had a 0.5 bath/powder room. Very few homes had a full 2nd bath. The kitchen was basic (not luxury) and so was the bathroom.
People's expectations of what they need to live have changed.

[Anonymous]

My kid lives with us and banks entire paycheck since the past few years. Has a SO since college and they are getting married soon.

No student debt (merit scholarships and parents paying), paid off car (present from dad), investment account (present from relatives), wedding (paid by parents), all household goods to start a household has been already accumulated - so all of that is a significant leg-up.

We are Asian-Americans. We have followed this path for generations to create wealth and pass it on to the next generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does not at all factor in student loans, which can be crippling. And many young people may not find jobs in their industries close to home.

Student loans don’t happen by accident. Despite what Biden advertises, people have agency over which schools they attend and how much they borrow.

+1000

Nobody is entitled to whatever education they want. You need to select a college that is affordable for you. They do exist for everyone.

But don't take $150K in loans for any degree, but sure as hell not for some random degree where your avg salary is only $35K. If you are smart enough for college, you are smart enough to understand that is a dumb idea.

Work and earn $40K (10/year) to pay for college, then find a school that you can afford with minimal debt.

Or don't but then don't complain when your $150K becomes $240K because you cannot make even the minimum payments and interest keeps accruing. That is how loans work, don't take them if you don't understand that

If you come from an actual poor family, unless you can get into a T20, the odds are that your financial package will expect you to max out federal loans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your "solution" to the housing crisis is for all kids to attend college, graduate and immediately make $100k, live with their parents until they are 30, and save half a million dollars?

You're a genius, OP. A real policy savant. Where should we mail your Nobel Prize?

Care to tackle peace in the middle east next? I'm sure you can come up with a solution - perhaps set a specific date and time for everyone to drop their weapons and sing Kumbaya?

There is no "housing crisis" only an entitlement mentality crisis. People seem to believe that they have a right to live wherever they want regardless of whether they can afford it. The world does not owe you anything and this mentality does nothing to help someone afford a house. The people that complain about housing affordability are the same people that pass numerous policies that actively worsen what they are complaining about, retroactive building performance/energy efficiency standards, costly building code updates, bond initiates for "affordably housing (which make housing less affordable by increasing property taxes). I don't want to hear from these people anymore. The only objective of density bros and the "housing crisis" crazies is to force everyone else to live in high density micro apartments. They are all front groups for developers and the real estate lobby and these industries will gladly destroy communities as long as it maximizes their profits

Working hard HS-----> college ------> workforce over the span of 10-15 years and wanting to afford a home (even a "regular" non-Mansion home) is not an entitlement mentality. It is what the American Dream promises and has delivered pretty reliably until recent years. Now kids work hard, or harder, and will receive/see less of a payoff in terms of home, retirement, etc. than the generations before them.

And that sucks to realize. They're angry and rightfully so. But it isn't "entitlement" so stop throwing that word around.

Peoples expectations are not realistic anymore. In 1950, the average new construction SFH was only 958 feet and the average household size was around 3.5 people (274 sq ft per person). The average size of a new construction SFH in 2023 was 2,469 sq feet and the average household size was 2.6 people (950 sq feet per person). The average sq ft per household member today is 3.46 times larger than in 1950. So of course home are less affordable when people expect to have 3x more space per person compared to recent history. Even for the more affordable condo units people have come to expect 600-800sq ft for a one bedroom unit when it could easily have 2 bedrooms or more. Most people don’t want to buy small units with multiple bedrooms anymore so developers don’t build them frequently.

The late 40s/early 50s saw some of the smallest housing constructed. The average new house before and after that period was significantly bigger. Not as big as today, but using 1950 as some kind of ideal is misleading. The combination of the Great Depression, WWII and the baby boom saw a massive housing crunch and builders were building as fast as they could and pumped out as many of the smallest houses as they could.

Home ownership was seen as an essential part of being American and was heavily supported by government at national and local levels. New build ramblers would still sell well if they were targeted towards young families, but the margins on mc mansions are better and government prefers to subsidize density, so they never get built

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I moved to DC after graduation in 2010, I knew almost no one who had grown up in the DMV and had parents nearby to live with. Everyone had moved there from somewhere else. We also weren’t making 100k salaries, think less than half that. Somehow we all managed by living in group houses and not having cars (why a car in DC?)

The key for me and DH was not having student loans more than anything else and getting on the property ladder early, way before kids.

Come on. When I moved to DC in the early 2000s, I have a 1 bedroom, garden style apt. in Arlington with off street parking for $600/mos. I then moved to a group home, a SFH, with 3 roommates. Had my own bathroom, bedroom, laundry in the house, parking, and a yard and I paid $300/mos. Also in Arlington.

You cannot find these prices now.

Similarly, your last point about student loans is a big one. YOu were very lucky not to have those. And to be able to buy property early on.

[Anonymous]

Np, in a roundabout way, I am doing this with my 21-year-old son. The only difference is that I "charge him rent" that goes into a savings account and will be returned to him when he moves, and he doesn't make anywhere near 100k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does not at all factor in student loans, which can be crippling. And many young people may not find jobs in their industries close to home.

Student loans don’t happen by accident. Despite what Biden advertises, people have agency over which schools they attend and how much they borrow.

+1000

Nobody is entitled to whatever education they want. You need to select a college that is affordable for you. They do exist for everyone.

But don't take $150K in loans for any degree, but sure as hell not for some random degree where your avg salary is only $35K. If you are smart enough for college, you are smart enough to understand that is a dumb idea.

Work and earn $40K (10/year) to pay for college, then find a school that you can afford with minimal debt.

Or don't but then don't complain when your $150K becomes $240K because you cannot make even the minimum payments and interest keeps accruing. That is how loans work, don't take them if you don't understand that

And do you understand that many students still need to borrow money just to go to community college? I’m a teacher and my DS would’ve had to take out loans to go to CC if my dad hadn’t died and left me some money. You can save money if you don’t make enough to save.

As long as total borrowing does not exceed 1 year’s starting salary, then sure go to college. Otherwise, do not go to college because you are making a Terrible financial decision.

Living off minimum wage because you don’t have a degree is also a terrible decision.