|
cheese posted:I read that entire joke of an article and no where in it could I find evidence that "millenials are leaving the city as soon as they have kids". I hope this helps. Here have one from the Washington Post. Although the reason for looking to move isn't because they want to but more "we can't afford both a kid and the rent in the city". DINKs can outbid a family with a baby and are thus less price sensitive. Edit: note this is just a continuation of the arms race started by some families going dual income. Unable to add income, now people are forced to indefinitely delay having a kid, or move. Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Jun 19, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
Rah! posted:Speaking of white flight and San Francisco: quote:edit: for the entire Bay Area: quote:And for Oakland: Also it's pretty telling that San Francisco has only built enough housing to increase its population by 5% in 60 years when the bay area itself expanded by 250%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Here have one from the Washington Post. This is not technically an arms race, as not all women want to stay at home or have children. Children with a certain standard of living has become a consumption bundle instead of a right, though. I'm not so sure this is a bad thing, especially if high un- and underemployment persists into the future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:
To be fair, SF actually lost 100,000 people from 1950-1980. White flight was in full swing, the decline in the black population started in 1970 as well, people were leaving due to lost jobs from de-industrialization, gentrification to a small extent (if only they knew how bad it would get in a few decades!) and crime also skyrocketed in the 60s/70s/80s (and the 90s, but the population was growing again by then). Immigration didn't make up the difference in population loss until the 80s. So the population gain is more impressive when looking at it from 1980 onwards, with around 150,000 new residents added. The amount of housing units added since then has obviously been too few though, as only 50,000 or so have been built in that time. Rah! fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
Slobjob Zizek posted:This is not technically an arms race, as not all women want to stay at home or have children. Children with a certain standard of living has become a consumption bundle instead of a right, though. The ability for women to have careers needs to be separated from the present requirement for dual incomes to support a family in most of this country. The first is great, the second not so much. I am not advocating going back to the awful (even more) patriarchal days where a woman's income was ignored for loan calculations, but just pointing out that instead of giving people more disposable income the switch to dual incomes pretty much was entirely swallowed by housing costs. This does make people marginally better off emotionally (both can pursue careers that they find stimulating) but also brings large additional expenses such as child care which can put greater financial strain on the family and leave them more sensitive to housing cost increases that childless couples don't face. Families with kids serve as a kind of indicator species for a neighborhood is what I am saying. If they are getting priced out it means the neighborhood is tracking towards unaffordability.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:The ability for women to have careers needs to be separated from the present requirement for dual incomes to support a family in most of this country. The first is great, the second not so much. We don't need to get side-tracked on this issue, but this is what happens when a social norm is broken. Having children can be thought of as a 'tax' that everyone pays, because children (supposedly) benefit society. Now, this kind of 'tax evasion' is socially acceptable so obviously the childless will use their extra income to bid up prices. There is no real solution to this other than price discrimination in favor of those with children (lol, yeah right) or higher direct income transfers to those with children (maybe, but still lol yeah right).
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
Well, there is the Child Tax Credit, it's just not very big ($1,000 per child per year). But as for social norms ... fertility rates are decreasing worldwide, and the predictions are for the global population to peak and start decreasing somewhere around mid-century. In developed nations, many have already peaked, and those still experiencing net population growth are doing so with immigration. This is the new norm, at least for the next few hundred years, and while, on a multiple-century time scale, this is a good thing (since we're way past planetary carrying capacity), it does have a lot of downsides. The biggest of those is dealing with a population that is heavily numerically skewed towards the elderly. That opens a whole can of  about paying for retirement, etc. But in terms of housing there are issues of depopulation (should be a downward pressure on houses, but gets counterbalanced by urbanisation), and of wealth and political power being disproportionately concentrated in a numerically large retired population (which can be an upward pressure, as a lot of the Boomers, at least, seem to view their houses as investment vehicles, and encourage their kids to do the same).But yeah, one of the great challenges facing society in the 21st Century will be this ongoing demographic imbalance, and it will for sure have impacts on housing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
I live in an urban area but gently caress me if it isn't nice to hang out at my parents sprawling suburban ranch home every now and then. A big back yard for the dogs to run free, the privacy and quiet to have parties and events, a row of organically grown fruit trees (I sometimes daydream about the pomegranate's that tree cranks out). I love apartment life but its ok to admit that its nice to have a little plot of dirt to call your own.Shifty Pony posted:Here have one from the Washington Post. Shifty Pony posted:The ability for women to have careers needs to be separated from the present requirement for dual incomes to support a family in most of this country. The first is great, the second not so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:No, ShadowHawk commented that he, like perhaps some other posters here, might enjoy some aspects of suburb life over urban life to which you replied. Yes they are, I grew up in several and drive through them a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Spent my middle and high school years in midsouth suburbs. They are in fact applebees ridden hell holes. Throw a chilis and a walmart in and you've got the Memphis suburbs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:Spent my middle and high school years in midsouth suburbs. They are in fact applebees ridden hell holes. Throw a chilis and a walmart in and you've got the Memphis suburbs. Well at least some people actually enjoy Applebees for the ambiance and decor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2uN28EJRlA
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
A couple of my friends moved out to the burbs because it was cheaper in terms of PITI, but their transportation costs eat all of the surplus and then some. Also, gently caress the suburbs they are terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:A couple of my friends moved out to the burbs because it was cheaper in terms of PITI, but their transportation costs eat all of the surplus and then some. Also, gently caress the suburbs they are terrible. yeah a car has fairly big costs once you factor in things such as property tax, insurance and regular maintenance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
etalian posted:yeah a car has fairly big costs once you factor in things such as property tax, insurance and regular maintenance. Not to mention gas and parking. My transit pass is $40 a month, which is roughly 1/3 of what my suburbs buddy pays monthly just to park his loving car at work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Not to mention gas and parking. My transit pass is $40 a month, which is roughly 1/3 of what my suburbs buddy pays monthly just to park his loving car at work. Where do you live that monthly passes are $40? They're $100 here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Where do you live that monthly passes are $40? They're $100 here. Saint Paul, MN. My pass is cheap due to a deal between the transit authority and my employer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
I am kind of curious where people make the distinction between suburbs and city. I live in the burbs between Denver and Boulder (when we bought our house it was because I worked in Denver and the wife in Boulder). There are a lot of suburbish neighborhoods a few miles from the city. All single family homes, yards, maybe garages. You can bike anywhere. To me these are suburbs of Denver. I feel like you are all talking more about stuff like Parker or Castle Rock which are miles and miles from Denver and just part of the urban sprawl to the south. So I guess I am wondering where is the cutoff? Hedera Helix posted:Where do you live that monthly passes are $40? They're $100 here. It is all about deals through work. My pass in Denver is 140 and I pay 78. I bus or bike pretty much as much as I can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
The kind of suburb you describe is probably a "streetcar suburb," as opposed to a bedroom community suburb or exurb. I live about a mile from downtown STP in a 3 bedroom house with a garage, on 3 bus routes and a shiny new train transfer. My neighborhood and the surrounds were once linked to downtown by streetcars. We have a few similarities with suburbs, like single family homes and yards, but we also have sidewalks, robust transit, small corner business districts with mixed use buildings, restaurants dominated by local entrepreneurs, and essentailly all the other trappings of urban life. The real suburbs begin where effective commuting by transit ends, where the street "grid" ends, and where amenities become more obviously car focused.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:And there's always the goons who say i should be strung from a tree because I have the audacity to want to live somewhere with a yard. I have a yard and live in the city?  But have fun with your tree, I guess!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Is there any solid data on the increase in rent prices over the last few years? It feels like with fewer people interested in buying, the extra demand is really driving rents up in cities without rent control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Is there any solid data on the increase in rent prices over the last few years? It feels like with fewer people interested in buying, the extra demand is really driving rents up in cities without rent control. Based on the data I got here it looks like it's an increasing trend but not a new trend.  (annual rent of the entire US)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Is that adjusted for inflation, though?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:The kind of suburb you describe is probably a "streetcar suburb," as opposed to a bedroom community suburb or exurb. I live about a mile from downtown STP in a 3 bedroom house with a garage, on 3 bus routes and a shiny new train transfer. My neighborhood and the surrounds were once linked to downtown by streetcars. We have a few similarities with suburbs, like single family homes and yards, but we also have sidewalks, robust transit, small corner business districts with mixed use buildings, restaurants dominated by local entrepreneurs, and essentailly all the other trappings of urban life. Yeah many of the older cities have pretty nice row houses with a small yard and also have a more bike/pedestrian friendly grid layout too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:Is that adjusted for inflation, though?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:Is that adjusted for inflation, though? According to this: http://www.in2013dollars.com/1988-dollars-in-2014?amount=350 The $350 in 1988 is $706 dollars today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
It's interesting to see property bubbles across the world tie back to several common characteristics:- 1) generational shift to dual income households acting as an inflationary pressure on demand for property 2) wage stagnation and the transition from db to dc pensions contributing to the compensatory need for speculative growth in property values 3) hot money flowing across borders in search of yield with rentals being of interest now 4) the boomer generation, inside and outside the States, having seen the value of their properties blow up over the past few decades have pushed the notion of perpetual growth in property values as natural their kids
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
As a combination of number 1 and 4, there are a ton of savings from the boomer generation being plowed into real estate not just for themselves, but also for their children. Many people I know have been offered houses by their parents as a wedding gift or other excuse. A lot of these people aren't rich either, they just bought a house 30 years ago that's now worth a ton of money and have many options for using that money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
spwrozek posted:So I guess I am wondering where is the cutoff? There isn't a hard definition. It depends on who you're talking to and how you're talking about it. There's even a fun word, exurban, to describe things that aren't really rural but aren't quite suburban either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
on the left posted:As a combination of number 1 and 4, there are a ton of savings from the boomer generation being plowed into real estate not just for themselves, but also for their children. Many people I know have been offered houses by their parents as a wedding gift or other excuse. A lot of these people aren't rich either, they just bought a house 30 years ago that's now worth a ton of money and have many options for using that money. I think that's more common in Asia than in the West. It's not uncommon to see middle-class (by income) Asian families owning 2 or 3 secondary properties purchased on the cheap in the 80s/90s valued now in the seven figures. It'll be cool to see how this pans out long-term as a sociological phenomenon with the younger generation being bestowed property worth easily a couple million USD while they're in their 20s-30s but making peanuts in middle class jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It'll be cool to see how this pans out long-term as a sociological phenomenon with the younger generation being bestowed property worth easily a couple million USD while they're in their 20s-30s but making peanuts in middle class jobs. If you live rent free, that's a HUGE leg up in savings, even if you have a fairly meh job. The average person has to give up a large portion of their lifetime income to buy a house. Also, if the property is in a prosperous area that stays prosperous (A good bet is DC/NYC), it's a benefit that will also help them get high income jobs with more security. I am not not Asian, and while I won't be given a house, we have decided to self-finance any real estate purchases, since we have a large enough family and many of the elderly members have a hard enough time buying decently-yielding debt as it is. on the left fucked around with this message at 11:51 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 11:48
|
|
|
on the left posted:If you live rent free, that's a HUGE leg up in savings, even if you have a fairly meh job. The average person has to give up a large portion of their lifetime income to buy a house. Also, if the property is in a prosperous area that stays prosperous (A good bet is DC/NYC), it's a benefit that will also help them get high income jobs with more security. This isn't guaranteed. My grandparents had a pension + SS + savings and were very frugal, had a row house in a fantastic neighborhood in NYC (not a brownstone, it's a 1500 sf 3br with an alley and garage), and all the proceeds of that sale went to their medical bills and hospice care (before my grandmother died the expenses even with Medicare/Medicaid contributing was like 16k a month). We sold it in cash without a realtor with very little difficulty, but all the offers were from Chinese nationals trying to gtfo of a Totalitarian state. So I don't see this trend working out for the middle class either unless there are multiple properties/you're "blessed" with a quick, less costly death for your family members.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
I could have misread his post but I'm guessing on the left was focusing more on families that gift (secondary) properties to their kids before they pass on. If we're talking about handing over the parents' place when they go, it's just part of the inheritance which maybe a lot or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
My wife and I plan to sell our house after our kids are out of the house. We're going to use the cash to either buy a condo or to rent, but it will certainly be downtown. The whole of STP is connected by skyways, which generally suck because they take foot traffic off the streets, but are useful for elderly people during the winter. From a connected building you can easily walk through skyways to the orchestra, any number of theaters, numerous restaurants and cafes, the Amtrak/LRT station, a future baseball stadium, and a hockey arena. There are tons of doctors and dentists scattered throughout the skyway, and easy connections to hospitals. I can't really imagine being old and having to manage a house and yard. Our property is very modest, but the amount of work it generates is completely insane. Likewise, I can't imagine having to use a car for day to day purposes as an old person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
on the left posted:I am not not Asian, and while I won't be given a house, we have decided to self-finance any real estate purchases, since we have a large enough family and many of the elderly members have a hard enough time buying decently-yielding debt as it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
on the left posted:If you live rent free, that's a HUGE leg up in savings, even if you have a fairly meh job. The average person has to give up a large portion of their lifetime income to buy a house. No poo poo. If I didn't have to pay rent I'd go from my already silly 25% savings rate to basically 50%. It looks like the housing rebound ain't doing so hot now. quote:The Mortgage Bankers Association yesterday lowered its new and existing home sales forecast for 2014 to 5.28 million -- a decrease of 4.1 percent that would be the first annual drop in four years. The industry group also cut its prediction on mortgage lending volume for purchases to $751 billion, an 8.7 percent decline and the first retreat in three years. Well, there's your problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:That sounds like a nice idea in principle, but what happens in say five years' time when central bank zero interest rate policies are a thing of the past and your generous elderly relatives could easily be earning 5-10% on their savings rather than the (for example) 3% they've achieved by lending to fund their grandchildren's house purchases? Seems like a recipe for intrafamilial strife IMO... I honestly doubt interest rates will surge. Governments all around the world seem pretty dedicated to ZIRP. After all, we are in an economic situation where even 0% interest isn't enough to stimulate inflation and instead deflates currency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
poo poo's hosed and it will take too much pain for us to do anything to fix it now, when the pain is only moderately awful and largely not affecting the baby boomers.on the left posted:I honestly doubt interest rates will surge. Governments all around the world seem pretty dedicated to ZIRP. After all, we are in an economic situation where even 0% interest isn't enough to stimulate inflation and instead deflates currency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
cheese posted:poo poo's hosed and it will take too much pain for us to do anything to fix it now, when the pain is only moderately awful and largely not affecting the baby boomers. Poors should eat and sell their babies as food?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Poors should eat and sell their babies as food? Baby-backed securities
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
cheese posted:Hmmmm, let me check my supply side economics note card. We need to lower interest rates...already at zero? poo poo. We need to cut taxes on the rich and corporations...already low and full of loopholes and exemptions? poo poo. Remove barriers to the flow of international capital...already non-existent? poo poo. Little help? ZIRP is not supply side economics by any stretch of the word. And yes, the challenges faced by countries in a zero interest rate scenario are new territory, which is why we have stuff like quantitative easing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 02:41
|
|