|
The government moved heaven and earth for (white) people 1946-1977 to build housing for them that they could afford in their prime childbearing years. That same government is now wholly captured by rent-seekers. Prime child-bearing age hasn't changed, material conditions have. In 1946 you could buy a brand new house in Levittown PA for around a thousand dollars down in 2020 money. The government could do that again if it wanted to. It will not. Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Jul 26, 2023 |
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
even if you're speculating, a gigantic decrease in housing demand is baked in the current 1.5, 1.6, etc fertility rates per woman, so if everyone thinks about that for a moment the price would then whiplash
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud posted:Prime child-bearing age hasn't changed, material conditions have. If you mean "prime" as in the ideal age to have children, yes you are correct. The biology of when it's best to have a kid hasn't changed. If you mean "prime" as in when most people in an age cohort are doing it, it has absolutely been trending up and is older across the board if you compare millennials to boomers. If you control for socio-economic status and look specifically at the people who are focusing on careers and education in their 20s, it goes up pretty significantly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
It’s pretty widely accepted that women achieving more with their personal education and careers has also played a part in delaying childbirth as well, in my opinion and experience “the rent is too drat high” comes into play more when discussing having kids at all or how many to have. See also Korea and Japan - educated women delaying having kids, and costs going up in both countries meaning many people “unable to afford” having kids. The US would be in the same spot without immigration. —— Anybody spot this in the last week? https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-house-committees-investigate-ford-catl-battery-partnership-2023-07-21/ quote:Ford announced in February it is spending $3.5 billion to build a battery plant in Michigan using technology from CATL, the world's largest battery maker. A fun little side effect of the IRA’s investments and incentives for EV components, and the current hate-boner for Chinese components. I would imagine Ford is not the only OEM looking at this setup.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 05:25
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud posted:Millennials were born 1980-81 to 1995. Thirties to early forties is not peak child-bearing age by any sane definition. Lmfao Thank you for being the one person more consistently wrong than me on this dead gay comedy site
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 05:40
|
|
|
Newest GDP report is out for Q2 of 2023, and the US economy is still chugging along... New York Times posted:U.S. Economy Grew at 2.4% Rate in Second Quarter
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 14:14
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Lmfao Your perceptions are distorted by our incredibly warped material conditions. 35+ is not "peak childbearing age." That's geriatric pregnancy age. https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/geriatric-pregnancy If we had a government that wasn't completely captured by rent-seeking interests, they would incentivize having children at actual prime child-bearing age. The US government used to do this and never will again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 14:20
|
|
|
Even if we had perfect incentives to have children in our 20s, that still doesn't mean we'd do so. It's a worldwide phenomenon that women don't have children or have them later as we get more educated. Women's education levels have vastly increased as time has gone on
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 15:16
|
|
|
Either way, arguing that the housing market is tight because a bunch of people in their late thirties to early forties are now in their "peak childbearing years" is delusional. The housing market is tight because rent-seeking interests control all levels of government in this country and are using that control to squeeze every penny out of people that they can, and prevent new housing from being built at affordable prices. Millennials don't really have anything to do with it. The entire suburban housing boom 1936-1977 was government-subsidized, and that subsidy created a homeowning class out of thin air. The government's refusal to use state power like that again is the cause of the current crisis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 15:19
|
|
|
There's obviously a disconnect in this argument about what "peak" implies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 15:31
|
|
|
SpartanIvy posted:There's obviously a disconnect in this argument about what "peak" implies. "Millennials are in their peak childbearing years" is a result of our hosed up housing situation, not the cause of it. The previous poster is confused. Americans are not waiting until their geriatric pregnancy years to buy a house and have kids. Americans are having kids in their geriatric pregnancy years because they cannot afford stable housing before then. Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Jul 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
It's a dynamical system. Effects at one time can be causes for what happens later.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 15:33
|
|
|
The entire argument also relies on this notion that housing is just a naturally limited thing, like water or the amount of sunlight in a day. It isn't. The government could mobilize and build as much as it wants, on top of the 16 million empty houses that litter this country. Housing supply is tight and will remain tight because gently caress you, that's why. That won't change until government policy changes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
the feds and states are often pretty decent on this front, its the municipals who are little shits
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 15:41
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:the feds and states are often pretty decent on this front, its the municipals who are little shits Yeah, it's not like FHA mortgages have gone away or that there suddenly isn't a mortgage interest deduction anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 16:02
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:the feds and states are often pretty decent on this front, its the municipals who are little shits Sort of, one reason a lot of cities don't want to see rapid expansion of housing (aside from rabid Nimbyism) is they understand their infrastructure is insufficient. God knows Portland has streets that were never intended to be arterial just full of cars all day long every day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
they nimby the street improvements and transit too. infrastructure is just more building, usually w vaguely different but not that different construction peeps
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:Sort of, one reason a lot of cities don't want to see rapid expansion of housing (aside from rabid Nimbyism) is they understand their infrastructure is insufficient. This is kind of a circular argument that the NIMBYs will make, though. They fight any attempts to improve or expand infrastructure, then scream about how you can't add more housing because the infrastructure can't handle it. In Austin they used to call this "if you don't build it, they won't come" thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 16:13
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud posted:"Millennials are in their peak childbearing years" is a result of our hosed up housing situation, not the cause of it. The previous poster is confused. The fact that women want to pursue advanced degrees and careers is a major part of it. I've known a lot of women who chose not to have children in their 20s in large part because juggling grad school and then the hectic, time-intensive first years of a career and childcare wasn't feasible for them. The lack of affordable, quality child care in the US is part of this, but it is far from the only factor. I've known a fair number of female European academics who made the same decision in situations where they had much better childcare options available to them. The reality is that trying to care for a 2 year old while you're writing a dissertation (or are a junior partner in a law firm, or are trying to do your surgical residency, or are the bottom person on the totem pole in a financial services firm, etc) is frankly not realistic for a lot of people. I know two women who were able to do so precisely because their jobs paid well enough for their husbands to stay at home and take on primary caregiver duties. This golden age you're imagining of women all jumping at the opportunity to have kids in their early 20s also involved a whole poo poo ton of women choosing that option because others were not available. And, yes, this does tie back into housing because those same educated, professional women, once in their mid-30s and realizing time is running out, are often earning enough money that they are far less price sensitive than your hypothetical 20-something first time house buyer, at precisely the moment in their lives when they're looking around at the 2br condo that was just fine for years and realizing that it's time to upgrade if they're going to start a family. You're not wrong that the ideal time for a woman to give birth isn't in her late 30s, but everyone else in this thread is using "peak" to describe the average age of first childbirth in a population (or a subset of said population - socio-economically and educationally advantaged women in this case), not the way you're using it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 16:14
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
And this is the result of our hosed up economic and housing situation, not the cause of it. The previous poster has the situation backwards. VVVVVVVVV - People do not choose to have children into medically dangerous ages when material conditions are not pushing them to do so. "The housing market is really bad because a generation that is poorly off compared to their parents is choosing to have kids at medically risky ages" is missing the forest for the trees. Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jul 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud posted:"Millennials are in their peak childbearing years" is a result of our hosed up housing situation, not the cause of it. The previous poster is confused. "geriatric pregnancy" technically starts at 35 because that's when statistically significant elevated risk starts to show up for fetal abnormalities or other health complications, but it's a difference of percentage points until you get into like your mid-to-late forties. It's not like there's a hard cliff at 35, and even if there were, half of millennials are still younger than 35. Also, to be blunt, I think the language you've used is pretty hosed up and devalues women. If you're a medical professional, you should understand that lay people may have a different understanding of medical terms and be sensitive to how you use them outside the medical community. If you aren't a medical professional then you need to understand that medical terms may not mean what you think they mean, and probably avoid using them altogether if you think they may be perceived as insensitive. You should be especially sensitive right after you've tossed off an extremely reductionist slogan like "peak child-bearing age is 22."
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
he touches crud software bureaucracy poo poo at insurance places
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 16:26
|
|
|
Yeah, it's probably not worth any of our time to argue with the site's preeminent doomer who is going to argue that the fact that people aren't shooting out children at the biologically-ideal age of 22 is because
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 16:53
|
|
|
You can dress the statement up any way you'd like, but the housing market is tight because the housing market is tight and gently caress you pay me. It has nothing to do with millennials buying houses and having kids. The housing market was tight ten years ago, it will be tight ten years from now. It is tight because rent seekers control everything. Millennials having children later in life is an outcome of that situation, not the cause of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:"geriatric pregnancy" technically starts at 35 because that's when statistically significant elevated risk starts to show up for fetal abnormalities or other health complications, but it's a difference of percentage points until you get into like your mid-to-late forties. I want to highlight this, because I've seen a lot of doom from people in that age bracket and yeah, it's very much not ideal, but it's not like if you conceive past 35 you're guaranteed to have problems. I'm going to use trisomy (downs) as an example, because maternal age is pretty much the only risk factor worth talking about and it's extremely well studied. Over-all risk is about 1 in 1,000 live births. I forget what the risk is for a younger woman, but it goes up significantly in the 30s, to the point that over 80% of children with down syndrome are born to women over 35. That sounds really bad, but the numbers are still fairly small. At 35 the rate is about 1 in 350. At 40 it's about 1 in 100. At 45 it's about 1 in 30. Which, yes, that is a very much elevated risk. Someone who is thinking of having a child at 40 needs to have a very frank conversation with both their doctors and their partner, and go into it with eyes open. But, even at 45, you are still talking about a 96.6% chance that the child will be - at least as far as trisomy goes - healthy and normal. A close friend got pregnant at 37 recently and hoooooly poo poo the amount of bullshit she's gotten from people acting like it's basically a toss of the coin whether her kid will come out with massive abnormalities. To hear some people talk it's a miracle if a kid born to a mother over 35 comes out normal. It's not ideal. If you have the option to have a kid at 30 or 40, 30 is the better choice, both for the mother and the child. But if you wake up at 35 and decide you want to have a child you're not some kind of reckless monster. edit: , Note that downs is not the only maternal-age related genetic defect you can run across. A lot of the others follow similar patterns, though. There are also additional risks for the mother (I think pre-eclampsia risks go up? not sure on that), so it's not all roses and sunshine. But, again, it's within the realm of risks where someone can educate themselves, talk to their doctor, and make an informed decision, not an automatic reckless and irresponsible choice. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jul 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
The housing market was not, in fact, tight in TYOOL 2013. In fact, the issue back then was still the glut of foreclosed houses in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. It's the aftermath of that glut causing a massive drop in new home construction for half a decade that has us in the position we are in now. Not because 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:The housing market was not, in fact, tight in TYOOL 2013. In fact, the issue back then was still the glut of foreclosed houses in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Builders weren't even keeping up pre-recession. It's been an issue in the works a decade or two before that. The recession just gave a temporary reprieve but then when the economy rebounded afterwards and there were even less houses than before for even more people, it made everyone realize how hosed it really is. In my mind the only solution is to go full 1950s and just build millions of small homes everywhere you can. Tiny homes, mobile homes, whatever you can build that people can own on land somewhere. That wouldn't be enough though because we don't have enough land where people want to live anymore. We'd also need to outlaw corporations owning residential property as investments, and also skyrocket property taxes on anything but a person's primary residence to destroy the landlord class and get homes into the hands of would-be homeowners. None of that will ever happen though.... SpartanIvy fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Jul 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 17:05
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:The housing market was not, in fact, tight in TYOOL 2013. In fact, the issue back then was still the glut of foreclosed houses in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. A glut of foreclosed houses in 2010 didn't mean anything for young people who lost their jobs or had other career setbacks that put housing out of reach.  The housing situation in 2013 was worse for first-time buyers than it was in 2003, which was worse for first-time buyers than it was in 1993. First-time buyers were a minority in 2022 and there's no sign that housing will become more affordable for first-time buyers any time soon, because it would take government action to make that happen and government action doesn't happen anymore in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 17:07
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud posted:You can dress the statement up any way you'd like, but the housing market is tight because the housing market is tight and gently caress you pay me. It has nothing to do with millennials buying houses and having kids. The housing market was tight ten years ago, it will be tight ten years from now. It is tight because rent seekers control everything. Millennials having children later in life is an outcome of that situation, not the cause of it. Please back off the repeated simple assertions of your opinion about the government that simply cast everything with one black and white perception of the world. It’s just become angry doomer ranting, and this thread is supposed to have a bit better level of discussion than that. Housing is complicated and there’s not one single reason that median prices have increased relative to median salary. Nor is there one single reason that in developed countries ages have increased for child bearing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
pfc is thread quarantined in yospos, you could do something similar
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
16 million unoccupied residences sounds like a housing supply crunch, not an oversupply. Or am I just a moron?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
Part of the issue is that the supply of housing is very unevenly distributed around the country and doesn't necessarily line up with where people want to be. Unoccupied houses outside Las Vegas don't help prices in Boston or NYC at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
Housing supply is uneven as stated above and also the amount of housing on the market is controlled to keep prices high. https://www.rocketmortgage.com/learn/shadow-inventory quote:Shadow inventory is the term given to real estate owned (REO) properties that are unoccupied but not yet on the market. This can refer to homes still in the foreclosure process or homes owned by residents or banks who are waiting for better selling conditions. Anecdotal from my realtor, but supply is also hosed because people who bought at < 4% in the past ten years are unable to upgrade (or even buy anything comparable) at current rates. They can't climb the ladder so they can't sell. Supply around here is a tenth what it usually is this time of year. Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Jul 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
Borscht posted:16 million unoccupied residences sounds like a housing supply crunch, not an oversupply. Or am I just a moron? The 16 million number might also include empty rental apartments too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
SpartanIvy posted:Builders weren't even keeping up pre-recession. It's been an issue in the works a decade or two before that. The recession just gave a temporary reprieve but then when the economy rebounded afterwards and there were even less houses than before for even more people, it made everyone realize how hosed it really is. The answer is almost definitely density - to both increase housing stock in urban areas with jobs and to get people out of cars and help with climate change - but that’s basically impossible due to FYGM, nimbyism, and our insane car culture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 17:56
|
|
|
boomers own 1/3rd of all housing in the U.S. over 50% of them bought them before the year 2000
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
SpartanIvy posted:The 16 million number might also include empty rental apartments too. NAR implies single family homes, although they don't outright say so. https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/16-million-homes-vacant-in-us Chart says "housing units" so it probably includes rental apartments too Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Jul 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
err posted:boomers own 1/3rd of all housing in the U.S. over 50% of them bought them before the year 2000 Excited to one day inherit my parents house, so I can finally become a property owner. My area being near the ocean has seen above average price growth, but we are going to have some serious problems when more low level workers can't even afford to live within an hour of their workplaces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
There are about 82MM single family homes. 20% being vacant sounds high to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:Excited to one day inherit my parents house, so I can finally become a property owner. Housing demand will get so high no one will want to live there!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2023 18:26
|
|
