Why Millennials Are (Partly) to Blame for the Housing Shortage

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

The US discourse has this quite annoying habit to categorize people in tiny little boxes.

As some have called it, it is an avoidance of calling people rich and people poor. I happen to agree.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by The North One

You act like there's a huge disparity between gays and straights getting married when there really isn't.

Well, gee, I'm 72 years old and for about 97% of my lifetime gays and lesbian couldn't get married in the US and I do not think they've caught up yet. Now they can marry but--trust me on this--there's still quite a few gays and lesbians who are partnered but still don't necessarily want to get married for many reasons including the state of our tax laws (quite a few straight seniors who meet late in life never marry either for the same reasons). And finally, this is really not about sexual orientation or condition of matrimony so much as having kids or not. I am well aware quite a few partnered gays and lesbians have kids and those who do in the Bay Area often move to the suburbs like their straight brethren. But probably there are more gay people, married and not, who remain childless than straight people otherwise demographically like them. The city in the US is a place mainly for the childless. A lot of that is about schools. Some of it is about safety and space. Housing with room for kids is simply cheaper in the 'burbs.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by 10023

America doesn't have a housing shortage. Certain urban neighborhoods have a housing shortage. The main cause of that is the simple "they don't build 'em like they used to"... new car-centric cities are not substitutes for 19th century neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, there isn't a shortage of 19th century neighborhoods in St. Louis. In fact, we may have too much historic stock in the central city. Stuff that would go for $1M+ on the coast are left to decay and we still have a shitload of it left. Of course the intact neighborhoods are pricey by Midwestern standards, but I still wish 19th century river cities were as popular as legacy coastal cities. If that were the case, St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh would be booming out of control (although I will say that all three cities are major dark horses that will shine again in some sort of fashion).

[Kenmore]

big part of population decline in chicago, middle class millennials simply cannot afford to own homes in good neighborhoods.

[10023]

Originally Posted by goat314

Unfortunately, there isn't a shortage of 19th century neighborhoods in St. Louis. In fact, we may have too much historic stock in the central city. Stuff that would go for $1M+ on the coast are left to decay and we still have a shitload of it left. Of course the intact neighborhoods are pricey by Midwestern standards, but I still wish 19th century river cities were as popular as legacy coastal cities. If that were the case, St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh would be booming out of control (although I will say that all three cities are major dark horses that will shine again in some sort of fashion).

I think you misunderstood my point (or perhaps I wasn't clear enough).

Obviously the city itself has to be attractive. There must be jobs and vibrancy and everything else that people are looking for. But within a city, these older neighborhoods are the most desirable, and command extremely high prices as a result.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

big part of population decline in chicago, middle class millennials simply cannot afford to own homes in good neighborhoods.

Lol, what? This is not backed up in any way by facts. The vast vast majority of the population decline in Chicago is lower and middle class African Americans who have decided that living in a place with a simmering gang war with entrenched poverty isn't super fun. The white population of Chicago has drifted slightly downwards (I think it is down 70k or 80k since 2000) while the AA population is down like a quarter million over the same timeframe. Also, Chicago is by far the most affordable large city in the country and even more affordable than many trendy mid sized cities like Seattle, Austin, Denver, etc. People are not leaving here because they can't "afford to own homes in good neighborhoods". If anything they are converting bad neighborhoods to good neighborhoods at a breakneck pace.

[ChargerCarl]

[ssiguy]

I must confess I find a lot of the Millennial culture" very narcissistic with all these selfies. Their inability to actually engage with people on a personal level as opposed to texting them I find rather pathetic BUT..........I am so sick of Boomers blaming every societal ill on the Millennials.

No generation in the last 100 years has been so politically, economically, and socially irrelevant as Millennials with Gen Xers a close second. They are sizeable poorer and have far less social impact than their Boomer parents. Two-thirds of everything people listen to on the radio is still the stuff their parents listened to.

Anyone born after 1975 has FAR less cultural relevance than those born before the mid-60s but somehow in their poverty and lack of opportunity they are also being blamed for the housing crisis because god forbid ANY form of societal problem being the fault of the mighty Boomers.

[mhays]

Millennials have the most leeway to change their course, even if the options aren't great for many people. They're also a newish trend as they've been entering the job market. Boomers by contrast are most of the way through making their beds, and they're old news.

There are articles about boomer trends too. Usually they're about people not saving enough for retirement. Actually this is a sizable recurring theme in the media. Boomers have also been reading it for many more years than the millennial thing...multiple decades vs. probably one decade or much less.

It's also the start of a new era where kids are poorer than their parents on average for the first time in recent history. Of course that's being covered. That can have a blaming tone sometimes, but that's not the rule.

So I'm not surprised if the millennial thing is getting more press at the moment.

The script will even out more at some point as more and more boomers find they can't retire, and that becomes a big public policy topic.

[MolsonExport]

clickbait crap again.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by mhays

48 is the sweet spot. We can still do most things athletically, outproduce the hell out of everyone else, hold vast reserves of knowledge, and are paragons of grace and humility. I'll give millennials credit...they know social media.

nahh, 47 is the sweet spot. Although I will be on the same page as you later this year.

[mhays]

I suspect you'll hit 48 and the sudden increase in talents and perspective will cause you to rethink that assumption. (As for 47...I lived it.)

[JManc]

Holy shit you two are old!
























Almost 44 here...

[Chef]

Originally Posted by mhays

I suspect you'll hit 48 and the sudden increase in talents and perspective will cause you to rethink that assumption. (As for 47...I lived it.)

I was as smart at 38 as I am at 48 and much better looking.

[mhays]

Sorry it hasn't worked out as well for you! I stopped cooking at 23. Over half my life ago. Crap.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I must confess I find a lot of the Millennial culture" very narcissistic with all these selfies. Their inability to actually engage with people on a personal level as opposed to texting them I find rather pathetic BUT..........I am so sick of Boomers blaming every societal ill on the Millennials.

No generation in the last 100 years has been so politically, economically, and socially irrelevant as Millennials with Gen Xers a close second. They are sizeable poorer and have far less social impact than their Boomer parents. Two-thirds of everything people listen to on the radio is still the stuff their parents listened to.

Anyone born after 1975 has FAR less cultural relevance than those born before the mid-60s but somehow in their poverty and lack of opportunity they are also being blamed for the housing crisis because god forbid ANY form of societal problem being the fault of the mighty Boomers.

millenials are the children of boomers. if this is the case, than they should be blaming themselves!

[montréaliste]

It's Melania's fault.

[Hamilton]

The first reply in this thread nailed it. Nothing more really needed to be said...

Originally Posted by cityscapes

I'm so tired of these click bait-y titles vilifying millennials. Reading the article the author cites a constrained supply of housing in city centers, stagnant construction in the suburbs, and land-use restrcitions in built up areas constraining supply. What does any of that have with millennials? We aren't the NIMBYs fighting the development tooth and nail, we aren't the planning directors of the past decades that created time consuming and costly approval processes and zoning ordinances that don't encourage density or a diverse typology of housing that would create more affordable units.

Shame on us for not wanting to buy your exurban crap and commute two hours.

Since millennials are just starting finishing college or within their first 5-10 years of post college employment, they're naturally going to go where the jobs are. Since job growth and higher wages seem to be concentrated in something like 20 counties out of a total of 3,144, they're going to flock to the pricey well-established cities that have the monopoly on good jobs. There's no other options.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

As some have called it, it is an avoidance of calling people rich and people poor. I happen to agree.

The US likes to pretend that it doesn't have a class system. All countries have a class system, as have all human societies through history.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by 10023

The US likes to pretend that it doesn't have a class system. All countries have a class system, as have all human societies through history.

I feel like it's almost taboo to call people poor. At least thats the perception nowadays. You're either poor, well off or rich. Technically, middle class (the middle of the income scale or average) is comfortable poor in the grand scheme of things. The middle class is not immune to money problems or woes. If $300 or $900 expenditure affects a family negatively or even a $100 expenditure, are they really well off or rich?

Upper Middle Class is where it starts to get nice. 100k to 130k income per year is the sweet spot. For a single person that is. For a family, I'd say 150-250k combined income is the sweet spot.