"Bank overdraft fees snatch billions of dollars from struggling families. Even during this crisis, Wall Street milked people for more." --Senator Warren (MA-D)

well we're here to be milked, ma'am.

"I gave the CEOs a chance to fix that today – and they didn't. More proof that they care more about profits than people."

yeah Sentor Warren the only fucks they give regarding the Citizenry are how much can they milk us and bilk us outta.

we're not here to Thrive but to ensure
our vulture Capitalists are truly Happy.

we forget -- at our Displeasure
that We outnumber them by
about 60 or so to One.



"And his readers will be happy to know that their opportunity to own a home hasn't changed much in 70 years. You have as good of a chance to own a home as the Boomers did."

That's an incredibly bold statement, and I'm not buying it. A hell of a lot has changed in the past 70 years. ESPECIALLY in the real estate market. They're not even remotely comparable time frames anymore.

I'd agree with you that this false "bubble" isn't the same as the real estate bubble 12/13 years ago, but to say current home buyers are in the same position as boomer home buyers in the 60's were? That's way off. You can't even truly compare the two because of how demographics have changed so drastically. You're comparing apples to UFOs. Sorry, but that's a strike out.


My guess is that the total % owning homes is strongly back-loaded by those who bought over the last 30 or 40 years. At least in the desirable urban markets, house prices are up so much relative to salaries that there's just no way that it's as easy to buy a house as it used to be.

The better metric would be the ratio of house price/salary. Interestingly this would suggest that homes are not as overvalued now as in the early 2000s peak. You do have to factor in interest rates, and a (for example) $700,000 house is much more affordable at 3.5% that at 5.5%.

To the extent this is being driven by scarcity of houses, it is one more example of the consequences of not allowing adequate housing to be built. It's hurting both renters and would-be homeowners. Those of us who own homes are doing just fine but that should not be enough from a societal viewpoint.

And I agree that capitalism is not going to crumble because of this, as newer loans are MUCH more solid than those in the previous bubble. I assume that Charles has not applied for a mortgage and experienced the waterboarding that banks now want to do to make sure you can pay the money back.


@4 Overall homeownership rate is not the same thing as the ability of a young person to own a home.

Since 1960:
* Life expectancy has increased ~6%
* Age distribution has shifted upward dramatically (1960: 45% under 25, 23% over 50, 2020: 30% and 36% respectively)
* The ratio of median home price to median income has increased from 2.1. to 3.5
* Median age of first-time home buyers has risen from 25 to 32
* People under 35 living with their parents have risen from 11% to 22%, while people over 75 living with their children have decreased from 30% to 15%
* The homeownership rate for people under 35 has declined from ~45% to 38%

And that's without digging into equity ratios; I couldn't find the data in my 5-minute look-see.

It's harder for everyone in the US to own a home today, but it's significantly more difficult for younger Americans. The overall homeownership rate has only declined slightly, but homeowners today are significantly older than they were in 1960.


Nice Andre callback! 🙌


@6 -- "It's harder for everyone in the US to own a home today, but it's significantly more difficult for younger Americans."

factor in Student Debt and wonder how on Earth kids these days can afford their very own Domicile.

factor in the GI Bill of 1944
enabling (WHITE!) Vets of
both Education and Home
Ownership and you come
up with an Empty USOFA
of a Mddle Class. on what
Planet would this be Good?


Many of the homes built and purchased in the 1960s are in suburban areas that were attractive to the typical young growing family. Today's first time home buyer seems to lean towards single people competing for
fewer properties in a smaller denser area deemed acceptable due to entertainment or recreational concerns. Like one person has already stated teaming up would help but also prioritizing building equity over proximity to cafes would open up more options. It would be interesting to compare how easy it was to purchase in downtown locations considered very popular in the 1960s rather than in the rapidly expanding suburbs. Many people pointing out how much easier it was to buy in these areas are the same that would never consider a suburban location today.


@8 Oh please. If your comment weren't directed at young people, you wouldn't have written "You have as good of a chance to own a home as the Boomers did."

Wave your hands about culture-war guff all you like. If you can't be bothered to take the 5 minutes I managed to put into finding supporting data, then the established facts say yes, young people are having a significantly harder time buying a home than they did in 1960, and it's due to an aging population, rising relative housing costs, and wage stagnation and the concomitant rise in economic inequality, not to this supposed decline in "responsibility" that's perennially afflicting a younger generation when you hear an older generation tell it.


@2: The slight of hand from "You have as good of a chance to own a home as the Boomers did." to nothing about home ownership has changed substantially since 1960 makes little sense.

To answer that question, a better metric would be what percentage of income does housing now consume connected with what has occurred with wages, purchasing power and debt (particularly student load debt) since 1960.

In 1960 we essentially had an all male workforce. Not only has our population increased, but we have literally grafted an entire country of additional workers onto the existing economy with the increase in female work participation since 1960.

It made for a tight budget budget, but a single middle class worker in 1960 had the income to support a wife and 2 kids, a single car, a 2 bedroom house and a few local vacations a year along with a pension when they retired.

Are you claiming that is still the case based on the fact that the rate of home ownership has remained relatively steady since 1960?


@2: 2021 is obviously not 2008, (this time the problem is primarily with Commercial Real Estate and SPACs rather than home mortgages) but one the tells things were about to go very wrong were the number of people insisting in 2007 that essentially nothing about home ownership had changed in the past 50 years. Sorta the argument you and many other in the real estate market are defensively making now.


@8 - "Perhaps you should find a marriage partner." It seems people have, or at least a partner of some kind. PEW research says that only 25% of households were dual income in 1960, and 60% were in 2012. It may be even more now given that general trend line.


Robots and wheelchairs.

We have had a few people walking robots in my neighborhood. They (the robots) are instrumented to scan sidewalks for accesibility analysis.


"Is it financially harder to be young now than it was in 1960?" --@12

I dunno when i graduated high school i got a full time Union Scale job and a Third of our Nation was Unionized* and other biz had to compete so they too paid a LIVING Wage for the most part so are you stoned or just plain Ignorant? if you're Olde and White howtf didja miss This?

*SIX whopping % these days so
yeah don't Kids these days gotta bee
thee Laziest fuckers you ever did see?

PLUS Student Debt. did
You spend Oodles too?


nah ya didn't
say you're not
a Bot are ya? jc


@18 captures it.

The boomers could buy a home on one salary. Gen Z now needs two salaries to buy the exact same home.

Prices have increased but wages have not.


From failed broken window policing theory to claims that nothing has changed in the housing market since 1960, the constant effort of push every structural failure onto the backs of those least able to carry the weight is endless and disheartening.

I would ask them where this all ends, but I already know there answer:

"Whatever the market will bear."


OUR Market's


City homes have always cost more than rural homes. With most young people wanting to live in just 10 cities in the country (NYC, Boston, DC, Miami, Denver, SF, Seattle, Portland, Austin, LA), the prices in those cities are going up.
Homes have also climbed in price because they are more than twice as large as the average home in 1960 (2700 vs. 1200 sq.ft.), and have amenities that they didn't in 1960, when only the very rich had central air conditioning or the huge number of electrical outlets in houses today.
In the 1960's, people in their 20's buying a home were married, expecting kids (birth control including condoms were illegal in many places), and so wanted an area with decent schools, and didn't care about the nightlife. So homes in any metro area in the country were fine. Now people in their 20's are single and looking for a place where they can meet someone(s) for a decade or more, so the emphasis is on crowded places with a great nightlife. Nothing wrong with today's choice; people in the 60's got married waaay too early.
But if you want a 2-bedroom home today in, say, Topeka, you can find it for $60K. And the majority of USians lived in towns like that in 1960. You can say that living in Topeka would be intolerable (and you may be right), but when you insist on living in the hottest zip code in the country along with everyone else you can't really be surprised at the cost of housing there.



People wanting to live in those highly desirable zip codes do account for some of the housing market's insanity right now, but it's not the entire story. After all, Salt Lake City is the number one hottest housing market. Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota are all seeing hot markets and D.C. and New York are much cooler.

Also, it's not even that homebuyers want a swanky nightlife and a home with all the latest bells and whistles. Lots of homes do come with those, but what buyers want is affordability above all and they ARE willing to give up some of the perks in order to not have a mortgage that requires giving up their firstborn child.

There aren't enough affordable homes. In part because builders haven't been building enough of them, but also because wages have been stagnant since the 70's.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.