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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, its obviously the solution but its not considered cool so people dont do it.

It is considered a solution for people whose parents have stable housing and who have stable relationships with their children (so many parents on DCUM complain about their high school, college, and adult children when they are at home…there can be lots of conflict) and want them to live at home. They also need to live close enough to where their children work (not everyone can find a $100K entry level job in their field of study 30-60 minutes from their childhood home in the dC metro). Frankly, writing all of this out is frustrating. This is possible for a very small segment of the population and you positing this as a solution belies your ignorance of labor markets, modern family dynamics, etc etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all hear about inflation, housing costs in the DC area, and the hardships that face young people. But is this really so dire?

Let’s say you have a young person who lives at home with their parents after graduating college, from age 22 to 30. And let’s say their income averages $100,000 per year over that time (starting at $80-90,000 and ending up at $110-120,000 at age 30).

Of their $100,000 income, they pay $25,000 in taxes and only need to spend another $10,000 per year since they are living at home. That means they can save on average $65,000 per year—or $520,000 over the eight years (ignoring any potential investment gains).

That’s enough for them to buy a $400,000 condo in cash (or use that amount as a huge down payment if they’re getting married and need to buy a house instead). On top of that, they have enough to buy a solid $25,000 car, furniture for their new place—and still have enough left over for an emergency fund and maybe even some investments. That sounds like a pretty darn good place to be in as a 30-year-old.

Obviously, that only works under certain conditions. First, the kid has to major in something marketable. And the parents have to live in the same area and be at least middle-class/upper middle-class—but that describes most of the DCUM demographic. Thoughts? Why isn’t this the solution?

For UMC families it's more common for the kid to rent and live independently and then help them with a downpayment

Agreed. Living at home for college or in your early 20s is a good way to save money, but may come at the cost of networking and social connections. Living in a crappy dorm or apartment with too many people is a right of passage and being around for spontaneous invites is key to building a network for jobs and potential romantic partners.

[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.

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.

None of that matters. Developers are not building 1000 sq ft 3 BR/1BA homes because the cost of instead making a 4 BR/3BA 3,5000 sq ft home instead is nominal to the amount of profit they can make off the larger home.

Homes are being built to maximize developer profit, not create modest affordable starter homes.

[Anonymous]

You are delusional about wages. My 38-year-old daughter just started earning $75,000 after 16 years in the workforce. My recent graduate earns $50,000. I have one high-earning kid (computer science), but he's an outlier.

For feck's sake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Borrowing a bunch of money for a worthless degree wit poor job prospects is often a worse decision than taking a minimum job straight out of high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Hmm, it's almost as if casual, premarital sex with multiple people -- in addition to being destructive spiritually (my opinion) and for society broadly (head over to the relationship forum to see what the modern dating market is like) -- can also be bad for your finances and has been frowned upon for a reason for all of human history.

But yeah, I guess there's just no way for the middle class to get ahead anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are delusional about wages. My 38-year-old daughter just started earning $75,000 after 16 years in the workforce. My recent graduate earns $50,000. I have one high-earning kid (computer science), but he's an outlier.

For feck's sake.

Um, my recent grad is at $74K after two years. And they are only in a job that "requires some BA/BS" not a specific major. The company then trains them. Oh and they are in a MCOL area---$1500 gets them a very nice 800 Sq ft 1 bed/1 bath apartment, granite countertops, all LVP except Bedroom is carpet, Laundry in unit, with underground heated parking included.
This is literally a job anyone can get straight out of college, no specific degree required

[Anonymous]

Why do kids even need a place to live?

When I was single don’t laugh I often sleep in 50-70 beds a year.

I had my parents house to crash in but spent time friends apartments, girlfriends place, my beach rental I shared with 15 friends, going in business trips. I often go out friends Friday sleep over, then straight to GF house sleep over Saturday, then home to parents Sunday night then off to a business trip the next week

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do kids even need a place to live?

When I was single don’t laugh I often sleep in 50-70 beds a year.

I had my parents house to crash in but spent time friends apartments, girlfriends place, my beach rental I shared with 15 friends, going in business trips. I often go out friends Friday sleep over, then straight to GF house sleep over Saturday, then home to parents Sunday night then off to a business trip the next week

This is very atypical. And, quite frankly, sounds like a nightmare. Not everyone would be ok being so rootless.

[Anonymous]

50% of ACs in US live with their parents. Welcome to the way the rest of the world live.

Love Hotels are the business opportunity that is staring in the face of Americans. Who will avail of this golden opportunity? Probably some Asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

None of that matters. Developers are not building 1000 sq ft 3 BR/1BA homes because the cost of instead making a 4 BR/3BA 3,5000 sq ft home instead is nominal to the amount of profit they can make off the larger home.

Homes are being built to maximize developer profit, not create modest affordable starter homes.

it does matter. People complain they cannot afford to live now, not fully realizing that what they now consider "needs" were not there in the 70s. For example: most lived in a 1200-1500 sq ft 3 bed 1 bath home, many had only 1 car and the SAHP drove the other to work (or had a beater car to get around for one), most had ONE TV and didn't have cable/streaming/etc, you didn't get a new computer every 3 years or a new iPhone every 2 years (and pay $200+ for your family to have those phones), eating out was a treat every 2-4 weeks and often involved pizza--no Ubereatsing dinner 3-5 days per week, etc. All those extras cost $$$$.
And FYI-you can still find newer under 2K sq ft homes/townhomes or renovated 1970s homes that are smaller, it's just most don't want that. 20 somethings forget that their parents didn't live like they currently do when they first graduated---most want to continue living the life their parents provided them not realizing that it took 10-20 years to get to that point.

[Anonymous]

One word: SEX

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do kids even need a place to live?

When I was single don’t laugh I often sleep in 50-70 beds a year.

I had my parents house to crash in but spent time friends apartments, girlfriends place, my beach rental I shared with 15 friends, going in business trips. I often go out friends Friday sleep over, then straight to GF house sleep over Saturday, then home to parents Sunday night then off to a business trip the next week

This is very atypical. And, quite frankly, sounds like a nightmare. Not everyone would be ok being so rootless.

I was not rootless. My car, license. Mail, all my parents house. In fact I only changed address out of parents home at 34.

I dated girls doing same thing. My one GF lived in a beach town with very high rents in summer. Her and friends do a furnished off season winter rental cheap Sept 15 to May 15 each year then move home in summer. If single just jump around she did vacations in summer. Ironically I had a one bedroom I owned at time she stay over but next year I rented it out and kept bouncing. I always could kick tenant out or move home.

Single people don’t need a place

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One word: SEX

Only if you are ugly. I actually lived at home and had a very active sex life. Lots of 1NS and girlfriends and best part I had to go home!

And none of them popping in on me. Was heaven

[Anonymous]

Yeah just sacrifice your entire 20’s to buy a sh***ty condo, great idea! Never date, never do anything fun, don’t start a family until you’re practically too old to have kids, just afford a freaking condo. LOL.