Housing costs are crushing young adults

And it's going to get a lot worse.

First of all, check out this chart.

young-adults-living-with-parents.png

That doesn't look healthy. Not for an economy, nor for a society.
But the wealthy elites are just getting started.
Home asking prices are increasing at a rate only seen in the most bubbly of housing market history.

home sale price0.jpg

And yet, even a 19% increase in home prices isn't enough for this market.

sold-above-list1.png

Now comes the bad news.
This home price insanity was eventually going to show up in rent prices tragedy, and that moment has arrived.

apt list pricing.png
rebound2.png

Share
up
19 users have voted.

Comments

The lack of meaningful increases in wages also could factor in to where they end up living.

Biden could also have helped by cancelling student debt but he chose not to.

up
14 users have voted.

You won't own anything.

up
16 users have voted.

peanuts.

up
12 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Pricknick's picture

You can legally die by military at age 18.
You can legally die by explosive fireworks at age 18.
Own a weapon. No issue at 18.
Don't you touch that alcohol or those death sticks until 21. Marijuana is off limits.
Want a home of your own?
We'll need credit for that.

up
12 users have voted.

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

The Liberal Moonbat's picture

That actually sounds kind of good.
I like bubbles; they hurt people who try to profit from them - the only problem is their ability to escape the devil's due by sacrificing the innocent. We've seen this before; it led to #Occupy.

We need to weaponize our assets against Wall Street: We're not greedy, and we're not gambling addicts. Anticipate the next collapse, prepare for it well in advance (maybe our good friends at r/WallStreetBets can help us all be Michael Burry this time around?), and do WHATEVER IT TAKES to prevent another bailout. This time, LET THEM BURN, no excuses.

It's Groundhog's Day; with the benefit of knowing what will happen, we can finally get it right.

up
5 users have voted.

We live in a society in which "we live in a society" is considered a subversive and vaguely-threatening statement.

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is declared insane when he speaks of colors.

@The Liberal Moonbat that bubbles aren't the way they used to be. The amount of wealth concentrated in so few hands.....that wealth can blow up bubbles at will, and pop then when they want. The added bonus is they can prepare to profit from either side of the bubble. I'll even bet it's even legal.

up
7 users have voted.
The Liberal Moonbat's picture

@Snode Assuming your worry is justified; I think that's more like what THEY believe - they forget that money isn't fucking real. There are ways by which mortals may become gods, but you'd have to be an idiot to think chasing Mammon is one of them. Chaos will bring them low. Plutocrats are, always have been, and always will be, wannabes; they look way the hell down on those of us who actually ARE what they only pretend to be. I've mentioned before how I think Shift the Ape from the final book of The Chronicles of Narnia is one of the most underappreciated villains in literary history; that's who they are.

ANYWAY, the other question is: What makes you think the wealth disparity, awful as it is, is truly THAT MUCH worse than it was in 2008? Real estate is one thing Jeff Bezos is NOT involved in.

up
2 users have voted.

We live in a society in which "we live in a society" is considered a subversive and vaguely-threatening statement.

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is declared insane when he speaks of colors.

@The Liberal Moonbat All those Harvard MBAs thinking up new and exotic financial instruments and putting them into action. The wealthy don't make their own decisions on investing, they hire it out. I am sure Bezos is profiting off of real estate, through not deed in hand real property. All day every day their money is moving in and out of markets around the world. All that programming, all those computers, all that split second trading. And those Harvard MBAs have one job, to increase profits. No patriotism, no morality, just profits. The only thing that threw them was the little guys and Gamestop, but I imagine that's been taken care of.

up
6 users have voted.
The Liberal Moonbat's picture

@Snode ...take out the "Little Eichmanns" (as Ward Churchill put it so many years ago now) who are the real mitochondria of the colossus. They probably don't have much better security or more paranoid lifestyles than most anyone else, and Big Media would likely be at a loss as to what to say about it; there'd be little if anything to sympathize with (in fact, it would probably backfire nicely, a la Joker), and even talking about it without giving away the game would be an absurd task even for them. Nobody likes Dilbert's Pointy-Haired Boss, or Mr. Anchovy of Monty Python fame...and my father (who had a successful career in the corporate world before turning to academia, where he discovered many of the same problems) once suggested that they're the ones who really run the world.

up
4 users have voted.

We live in a society in which "we live in a society" is considered a subversive and vaguely-threatening statement.

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is declared insane when he speaks of colors.

usefewersyllables's picture

I gave up on home ownership when we had to sell off our place at a ruinous price in the last crash. I'm now a forever-renter: at my age, there's no way I'll buy back into that game of Russian roulette until after the next crash happens, if even then.

"Equity" is a meaningless concept in the face of an impending crash. Truth be told, we'd probably have done better to just have left the keys in the mailbox and walked away. Our credit ratings are never going to recover in this lifetime in any case. We are now among the population of asset-free 60somethings.

up
9 users have voted.

Twice bitten, permanently shy.

Where I live a developer bought a large rural parcel from a local farmer back in the 1980's. He carved it up into lots between 3 and 20 acres, most being around 4. Now the county wants to pass a law prohibiting anymore than one house or mobile home per 5 acres.

I own less than 10 acres so that would mean that I could not put another place on my property for one of my children. But a developer could buy up a 4 acre parcel and plat it out for 16-20 houses.

up
8 users have voted.
mimi's picture

@Enchantress

up
2 users have voted.

mimi

@Enchantress If you owned it prior to the new ordinance or law, you might be able to develop your property under the ordinances or laws in existence at time of purchase.

up
3 users have voted.

@on the cusp They haven't passed it yet. I just wonder what happens if your house burns down or is damaged by a tornado. This is Florida. There is also a matter of homestead exemptions. Everyone gets $25,000 for their homestead, even if it's a multimillion dollar mansion or a shack in the woods. If you separate your property, you end up owing a lot more money for non-homestead property. You only qualify if you actually live there.

up
3 users have voted.

@Enchantress @Enchantress In Texas, you can homestead one place. You can move, rent, but so long as you do not claim to have another homestead, you can claim it. I can't speak to Fla. law, but am curious if multiple improvements are going to be allowed. The primary right of a property owner outside a subdivision or city limits, is to do with their property as they damn well please.
The example is that when you move into some subdivision, you must adhere to a property owner's association bylaws. If you move into city limits, you must adhere to city ordinances. But outside those restrictions, you should be able to do what you wish.
Grandfathering is sort of like this: I have 10 cats. my subdivision says under a new bylaw, only 2 cats allowed. I am ok with my cats, but in the future, when my cats die off, I will only be able to have 2.
If the law passes, please consult with an attorney, and be ready to get a surveyor to draw lines for future homesteads.
Government from top to bottom hurts we little people of the 99%.

up
5 users have voted.

The house and the land that it sits on are an economic asset. You pay the owner to use it or buy it at current prices or to rent it. There is an intrinsic value to the house. It's what the original owner paid to build it. But that's a tiny fraction of what you will pay today, even taking into account inflation. For example, when I graduated from college in the late 1960s a nice new single family house in the Boston suburbs was $30,000. Today that house sells for over a million dollars, and I can think of many examples locally. Inflation since then is slightly more than 8 times, yet that same house, with maybe a few upgrades and maintenance is more than 30 times the price.

This is a serious problem, when your house becomes an economic asset. This is not unique to the US but is true in most capitalist countries, including Russia and China. How do you separate the intrinsic usefulness price of a house from its market price. A capitalist would tell you that being a market priced economic asset is a good thing and will prove that by stating that the market clears at the correct price. That's total crap. There is nothing correct about pricing a living unit in such a way that it inflates way beyond the means of a large segment of the population. You might say that the construction of new units of housing will correct for asset inflation. But that never works, as anyone familiar with the housing industry knows. The price of new construction inflates with the market for existing units. The next economic system has to solve this problem. However, Communism solved it a long time ago. As a citizen of the Soviet Union you had a right to a housing unit and never paid for it or paid rent. I think that there was a small bill for utilities. This is what I was told by friends who lived during this era. I think we need to study what worked in other systems and incorporate the best ideas in our next generation economic system.

up
7 users have voted.

Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.

@The Wizard

Communism solved it a long time ago.

In China, all land is owned by the government, and it gets leased out to private investors.

This is also the solution by the economist Henry George.
The thinking is that you shouldn't be able to collect rent for something you didn't create. And no one creates the Earth.
Plus, virtually every inch of land on this planet was stolen at some point in history. So you are profiting from the trade of stolen property.

up
7 users have voted.

@gjohnsit
of our planet is literally absurd. It requires ignoring the reality that the surface of our planet hosts a vast, interconnected and interdependent web of life. We all quite literally depend on the continued mutually reciprocal interconnections between a multitude of organisms. It’s what makes possible what we call life.

This is not a new idea, it predates the analytical study we know as science. Whether you call it Great Nature or the Holy Spirit it supersedes the fractionalization of our peculiar notion of ownership. Governments that ignore the universal common interest of a habitable planet in favor of overarching ownership rights are barbaric and patently unsustainable. Full Stop.

up
3 users have voted.

Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority. Meanwhile people are dying because of the material self-interest of a few. - Eduardo Giuliani

“Without a diversity of opinions, the discovery of truth is impossible.” - Alexander von Humboldt