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

[Anonymous]

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.

Not a smart one

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is the tragedy of late stage capitalism. If you think the “solution” is for young people who make six figures to scrimp and save for a decade in their parents basement only to be able to barely afford housing, then you don’t understand the definition of the word solution.

What you describe sounds like hell on earth. At that point what is the point of working hard at all? There’s no way to win.

Revolution becomes the only viable alternative to death.

Single 20 somethings making 100K should not need to sacrifice for ten years to afford a place to live.

They should be able to save $100K in 2 years. That's enough to enter the real estate market.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

Why, I think you've just answered your own question.

[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.

You take issue with peoples' expectations and then go on to detail how the builders are largely responsible for creating the problem. Even smaller properties are out of reach for many young people now. We're not talking the brand new million dollar builds here.

[Anonymous]

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?

Because Americans think they are special and need to be 'independent'. Nevermind that this is what most of the world does and nevermind that most of the 'independent' kids whine about not having enough savings, but.. they are independent.

[Anonymous]

I lived at home for a year during college. I waited tables at the time. My step brother would break into my room (I kept the door locked) and steal all my money. My parents couldn't believe that he was doing that (until he started stealing from them).

We were a “normal” family, but like many families there was a problem that required me to live in a different environment.

Your scenario makes a ton of assumptions.

[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.

You take issue with peoples' expectations and then go on to detail how the builders are largely responsible for creating the problem. Even smaller properties are out of reach for many young people now. We're not talking the brand new million dollar builds here.

I’m not blaming builders for anything. They ate responding to consumer demand and many of the same consumers that complain about “affordable housing” are often not willing to buy affordably sized housing units. So it is a somewhat self-imposed problem. There are some people that genuinely are doing everything right and cannot find a place to live. However, there are a lot of other people frankly that are just making bad decisions and not willing to live in housing they can afford, then blaming society for their self-imposed problems. I don’t buy the narrative that the sky is falling with the housing market. A significant component of this problem is that consumer expectations have increased much faster than household income.

[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.

You take issue with peoples' expectations and then go on to detail how the builders are largely responsible for creating the problem. Even smaller properties are out of reach for many young people now. We're not talking the brand new million dollar builds here.

I’m not blaming builders for anything. They ate responding to consumer demand and many of the same consumers that complain about “affordable housing” are often not willing to buy affordably sized housing units. So it is a somewhat self-imposed problem. There are some people that genuinely are doing everything right and cannot find a place to live. However, there are a lot of other people frankly that are just making bad decisions and not willing to live in housing they can afford, then blaming society for their self-imposed problems. I don’t buy the narrative that the sky is falling with the housing market. A significant component of this problem is that consumer expectations have increased much faster than household income. [/quote

You are so full of it with your housing “units” weasel words.

Prior generations had options for smaller HOUSES and houses a little further away. But now affordable homes means houses with extreme commutes OR condos.

The land has increased in value, for a variety of reasons such as increased population, Wall Street investing in SFHs, baby boom generation aging in place, etc. it’s not because people want big fancy homes, it’s because they want houses because, outside of NYC, condos are a TERRIBLE investment, often times WORSE than renting. They want a property that will be a good long term investment without having to spend 4 hours a day on a super commute.

[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.

You take issue with peoples' expectations and then go on to detail how the builders are largely responsible for creating the problem. Even smaller properties are out of reach for many young people now. We're not talking the brand new million dollar builds here.

I’m not blaming builders for anything. They ate responding to consumer demand and many of the same consumers that complain about “affordable housing” are often not willing to buy affordably sized housing units. So it is a somewhat self-imposed problem. There are some people that genuinely are doing everything right and cannot find a place to live. However, there are a lot of other people frankly that are just making bad decisions and not willing to live in housing they can afford, then blaming society for their self-imposed problems. I don’t buy the narrative that the sky is falling with the housing market. A significant component of this problem is that consumer expectations have increased much faster than household income.

You are so full of it with your housing “units” weasel words.

Prior generations had options for smaller HOUSES and houses a little further away. But now affordable homes means houses with extreme commutes OR condos.

The land has increased in value, for a variety of reasons such as increased population, Wall Street investing in SFHs, baby boom generation aging in place, etc. it’s not because people want big fancy homes, it’s because they want houses because, outside of NYC, condos are a TERRIBLE investment, often times WORSE than renting. They want a property that will be a good long term investment without having to spend 4 hours a day on a super commute.

It’s not about first time buyers “expectations” except a desire to not be screwed financially or never see their families or friends by driving forever.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who earns 100k straight out of college with just a bachelor’s degree? That sounds like fantasyland. Even people with business degrees aren’t bringing that much in two years after graduation typically.

+1 people are disconnected from reality. It's a very, very small segment of jobs that pay this much.

I’m 55 and still don’t make that much. 😂

I made that much at 28, and I'm 55 as well.

I’m a teacher and I won’t make $100k until 20 yrs (if I last that long; it’s not looking good).

[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

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.

[Anonymous]

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.