Living paycheck to paycheck (article)

[SKL]

Profit sharing schemes only work if they can be targeted to profit producing / value adding behaviors in the individuals receiving them.  In practice, this requires a human element in identifying what behaviors add value and which employees are exhibiting those behaviors.  It also requires a look-back and some degree of longevity.  And flexibility so that the policy doesn't push the company into layoffs / bankruptcy / relocation when there's a downturn.  Legislation can't do this.  Be careful what you ask for.

How many of you pay your helpers a percentage of your raises, bonuses, inheritance, royalties, or other windfalls?  Do you up the childcare fee, tuition, plumber fee, maid service payment, tips, etc.?  If not, why not?

[SHP]

14 hours ago, SKL said:

.

How many of you pay your helpers a percentage of your raises, bonuses, inheritance, royalties, or other windfalls?  Do you up the childcare fee, tuition, plumber fee, maid service payment, tips, etc.?  If not, why not?

Most of this doesn't apply to me. Never used childcare. But tips do. I make the choice to only support businesses that do not rely on customers to supplement the wages of their employees. On the very rare occasion I visit a restaurant that I cannot verify if they pay a living wage in advance, usually on vacation, I tip extremely well, 50% or more.

Unless things are run different where you are, if I wanted to give more to an educational institution they would prefer it not come as a check written above the tuition amount, that would make accounting a headache. There are endowments I can donate to. 

If I wanted to give my hypothetical nanny a raise/housekeeper/personal chef/handyman a raise I would. Why wouldn't I? I am baffled by the idea of expecting people performing services I am unwilling/unable to do myself to live in poverty. 

[Pawz4me]

20 hours ago, SKL said:

 

How many of you pay your helpers a percentage of your raises, bonuses, inheritance, royalties, or other windfalls?  Do you up the childcare fee, tuition, plumber fee, maid service payment, tips, etc.?  If not, why not?

I think I'm missing whatever point you're trying to make here. The people who at least somewhat regularly do work for us--the ladies who cut our hair, our dog groomer, our "mow man," plumber, etc.--all own their businesses and have full control over the fees they charge. Why would we automatically give them a percentage of our earnings or windfalls? Do Toyota, Ford or Apple do that with their parts suppliers, who are also independent businesses that have full control over their pricing? Has anyone in this thread suggested that they should? I don't see how this pertains to the conversation of fairly compensating employees.  But I'm not a business person or economist or anything of the sort, so perhaps I'm really just not understanding something?

Edited January 16 by Pawz4me

[DawnM]

On 1/13/2024 at 11:18 AM, Katy said:

I was just served a YouTube video titled in the image something like “$130k is now middle class” and something about vastly changing financial markets in 2024.  I didn’t watch it, but I thought the topic is timely. 

DH and I had a conversation recently about how rapid inflation always increases bargaining power for workers and unions. Both of which have consistently lost power throughout our lives (we’re 44). But as more boomers die or retire, there will be cheaper housing and more and more jobs. Not having enough employees is already a limiting factor in the economy. Several fast food restaurants near us have closed or switched to limited hours because they can’t keep enough employees at $15-18/hour to stay open. 

I feel like this will lower the prices of real estate eventually. I mean prices in desirable locations will always go up (Coastal areas, cities), but the cost of a large house in suburbs of small and medium cities in the Midwest will definitely go down relative to income in the next 10 years. And with the ability of more & more people to work remotely, eventually more companies will be forced to accept remote workers if they want to grow. So long term I suspect everything will be fine for Gen Z. But that doesn’t mean the economy won’t dominate panicked headlines just like they always have. 

I have heard over and over again that housing will not go down and it is not expected to go down.   I can't remember all of it, but they said that  prices have not slowed, even with the huge increase in interest rates and that the rates will go down eventually and then housing will be worse again with prices going up since people can afford more house per month since they aren't paying the huge interest amounts.   They also said that demand is going up, not down.

Some boomers are still working, but the first 10 years of boomers have already retired. (1946 to 1964).   

New housing is going up all over our area and there is still a housing shortage.   And people are still buying, even with 7% interest.   It is crazy.

[Carrie12345]

20 hours ago, SKL said:

How many of you pay your helpers a percentage of your raises, bonuses, inheritance, royalties, or other windfalls?  Do you up the childcare fee, tuition, plumber fee, maid service payment, tips, etc.?  If not, why not?

With more income, my household utilizes more services, so yeah, they get more percentage than they would otherwise. Isn’t that what trickle down theory is supposed to look like? Have more money, distribute more money?

I only have a small pond to trickle out of though. The people with giant basins keep fortifying theirs to prevent leaks and their many workers have dried up ditches.

[Heartstrings]

3 hours ago, DawnM said:

I have heard over and over again that housing will not go down and it is not expected to go down.   I can't remember all of it, but they said that  prices have not slowed, even with the huge increase in interest rates and that the rates will go down eventually and then housing will be worse again with prices going up since people can afford more house per month since they aren't paying the huge interest amounts.   They also said that demand is going up, not down.

Some boomers are still working, but the first 10 years of boomers have already retired. (1946 to 1964).   

New housing is going up all over our area and there is still a housing shortage.   And people are still buying, even with 7% interest.   It is crazy.

What I have seen is that housing is unlikely to go down substantially because even though we are building a lot, it’s not been enough to keep up with population growth. 
 

Builders slowed down in 2008 and while they picked up the pace after that it was never enough to make up for the lost inventory.  Builders are also incentivized  to build less than demand to keep prices high.  
 

It seems to me that house prices only go down when the economy is thoroughly terrible, like in 2008, so Im not actually hoping for that.  A slow down in the growth rate would be fine though.  
What we need to help young people and lower middle income people is to change building patterns and build affordable housing not just huge expensive homes that make builders the most money.  We need to be building starter homes that would be priced well for people actually starting out.  

[Corraleno]

On 1/15/2024 at 7:09 AM, SKL said:

How many of you pay your helpers a percentage of your raises, bonuses, inheritance, royalties, or other windfalls?  Do you up the childcare fee, tuition, plumber fee, maid service payment, tips, etc.?  If not, why not?

This makes no sense — no one has suggested that companies should provide bonuses to the employees of other companies who happen to provide services to them. People are suggesting that company profits should be shared with the employees who actually do the work that earns those profits, instead of just with investors and c-suite execs.

And despite the fact that I am retired and do not get any raises or bonuses, I do tip all service workers extremely well. And back when I was living in Los Angeles and working 80 hrs/wk I paid my cleaning lady double what she asked for because she did an awesome job and I thought $10/hr was way too low even back then (late 90s).

[Carrie12345]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

What I have seen is that housing is unlikely to go down substantially because even though we are building a lot, it’s not been enough to keep up with population growth. 
 

Builders slowed down in 2008 and while they picked up the pace after that it was never enough to make up for the lost inventory.  Builders are also incentivized  to build less than demand to keep prices high.  
 

It seems to me that house prices only go down when the economy is thoroughly terrible, like in 2008, so Im not actually hoping for that.  A slow down in the growth rate would be fine though.  
What we need to help young people and lower middle income people is to change building patterns and build affordable housing not just huge expensive homes that make builders the most money.  We need to be building starter homes that would be priced well for people actually starting out.  

I don’t understand builders right now. I’m in an area that had ENORMOUS (percentage-wise) growth for several decades. They shifted from vacation homes to suburban architecture. Then the gabillions of home building companies shriveled up with the crash, of course. Those that survived continue to put up large homes over $400k in dribbles and drabs. There’s an empty one a few houses down from me.

Why not build more, smaller, more affordable homes suitable and needed in our area? We’re not tidy blocks of uniformed aesthetics, and our codes merely demand a floor plan over 775sf. 

I’m so confused.

[Scarlett]

7 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I don’t understand builders right now. I’m in an area that had ENORMOUS (percentage-wise) growth for several decades. They shifted from vacation homes to suburban architecture. Then the gabillions of home building companies shriveled up with the crash, of course. Those that survived continue to put up large homes over $400k in dribbles and drabs. There’s an empty one a few houses down from me.

Why not build more, smaller, more affordable homes suitable and needed in our area? We’re not tidy blocks of uniformed aesthetics, and our codes merely demand a floor plan over 775sf. 

I’m so confused.

My boss is a land developer. He started 10 years ago and sold a full 40 acre tract of lots (33 mostly 1 acres lots) by himself  within 6 months.  Then his next several 40 acres of lots were bought up in one lot by an upscale builder in our area.  Covid slowed it all down, but they are still going with the builder purchasing them in blocks of 6 or so.  The houses start at $450but most are over $650.  This is in the Tulsa area where it is suppose to be a low ish cost of living. It is crazy to me.  

[Heartstrings]

10 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I don’t understand builders right now. I’m in an area that had ENORMOUS (percentage-wise) growth for several decades. They shifted from vacation homes to suburban architecture. Then the gabillions of home building companies shriveled up with the crash, of course. Those that survived continue to put up large homes over $400k in dribbles and drabs. There’s an empty one a few houses down from me.

Why not build more, smaller, more affordable homes suitable and needed in our area? We’re not tidy blocks of uniformed aesthetics, and our codes merely demand a floor plan over 775sf. 

I’m so confused.

I think it’s rational on their part.  At least a bit.   If I can build and sell 1 house and make say $100k profit or I can build and sell 4 smaller homes for $25k profit then rationally I should just build 1 bigger one to make the same money with less effort.   Especially if I can only easily find enough workers for 1 build at a time, it makes more sense to build the bigger more profitable one.

 Unfortunately builders are only incentivized to profit themselves, they aren’t incentivized to help fix the national housing crisis.  Market forces work well enough most of the time but sometimes a certain market fails and housing seems to have become one of those.  

 

[fraidycat]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

What I have seen is that housing is unlikely to go down substantially because even though we are building a lot, it’s not been enough to keep up with population growth. 
 

Builders slowed down in 2008 and while they picked up the pace after that it was never enough to make up for the lost inventory.  Builders are also incentivized  to build less than demand to keep prices high.  
 

It seems to me that house prices only go down when the economy is thoroughly terrible, like in 2008, so Im not actually hoping for that.  A slow down in the growth rate would be fine though.  
What we need to help young people and lower middle income people is to change building patterns and build affordable housing not just huge expensive homes that make builders the most money.  We need to be building starter homes that would be priced well for people actually starting out.  

Before "we" build affordable housing, "we" need to put more regulations in place regarding who can buy those houses.

We don't need more AirBNB, VRBOs, or "investment property rental home" owners, corporate or individual, buying up all of the inventory.

[Heartstrings]

Just now, fraidycat said:

Before "we" build affordable housing, "we" need to put more regulations in place regarding who can buy those houses.

We don't need more AirBNB, VRBOs, or "investment property rental home" owners, corporate or individual, buying up all of the inventory.

I couldn’t agree more.   

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

This makes no sense — no one has suggested that companies should provide bonuses to the employees of other companies who happen to provide services to them. People are suggesting that company profits should be shared with the employees who actually do the work that earns those profits, instead of just with investors and c-suite execs.

Well it also makes no sense to legally require profit sharing for paid employees without any consideration of their actual contribution to the increase in profits.  Employees are a resource whose value does not vary with the profit of a company.  Profits arise in different ways.  Maybe 90% of one company's profits are due to intellectual property or reputation developed by the owner.  Maybe 90% of another company's profits are due to amazing customer service of the front-line employees.  Within the same job description, employee A might deserve a bonus for developing a cost-saving innovation while employee B is just doing what he's told.  Laws can't adjust for these types of realities.

[SKL]

Should we have laws against owners outside the US having more than a limited amount of US real estate?  Kuz I think a lot of the RE is owned by big money / governments outside the US.

[Heartstrings]

Just now, SKL said:

Should we have laws against owners outside the US having more than a limited amount of US real estate?  Kuz I think a lot of the RE is owned by big money / governments outside the US.

I’d good with that, especially natural resources like WATER and farm land.  

[Katy]

6 hours ago, DawnM said:

I have heard over and over again that housing will not go down and it is not expected to go down.   I can't remember all of it, but they said that  prices have not slowed, even with the huge increase in interest rates and that the rates will go down eventually and then housing will be worse again with prices going up since people can afford more house per month since they aren't paying the huge interest amounts.   They also said that demand is going up, not down.

Some boomers are still working, but the first 10 years of boomers have already retired. (1946 to 1964).   

New housing is going up all over our area and there is still a housing shortage.   And people are still buying, even with 7% interest.   It is crazy.

So more boomers will need to die or move into nursing homes to make a substantial difference. And because of inflation, home prices are unlikely to ever go down. Especially not in desirable areas. What will go down is prices relative to income. So if inflation remains at this rate, in ten years middle class might be $200k. And then a $500k house that used to be $200k 15 years prior isn’t easy to afford, but it’s possible. 

[Bootsie]

4 hours ago, Corraleno said:

This makes no sense — no one has suggested that companies should provide bonuses to the employees of other companies who happen to provide services to them. People are suggesting that company profits should be shared with the employees who actually do the work that earns those profits, instead of just with investors and c-suite execs.

 

If you are going to make a distinction between sharing profits with workers of the company and suppliers to the company, you must also consider how companies decide whether to use another company to provide a service or whether they hire their own employees to to provide the service/work.  

Suppose you have Pharmaceutical Co A and Pharma Co B.  A scientist at Pharma A develops a vaccine that results in a significant increase in the company's profits.  The person cleaning the floor at Co. A is working no differently and contributing to the profitability of the company no differently than the person cleaning the floor at Co. B.  Should the person doing this job at A be compensated more than the person at B doing the same job, simply because the  person happened to be lucky enough to be employed by the company where the scientist made the discovery?  Should the person doing the job at B receive less than the person at A because that person was unlucky enough to choose to work at a company where a scientist didn't make the breakthrough?  

And, what if one company hires cleaners as its own workers and the other company hires an outside cleaning service?  If the person cleaning the floor should be compensated (through profit sharing) for the contribution to the company whose floor is being cleaned, why would the contractual arrangement of employment change this?  

[DawnM]

@Katy   Interesting and timely article:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/16/economy/boomers-own-more-larger-homes-than-millennial-families/index.html

Edited January 16 by DawnM

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

So I have no idea what the answer is but I’ve been thinking about this.

We lived in a town who’s primary industry is tourism, and seasonal tourism at that.  In the years we lived there the housing market went from normal when we bought in 2010 to almost no houses or apartments available today.  Air BnBs and short term rentals have taken over the area to the point locals either have been priced out or just cannot afford the homes.

However: all of those short term rental/VRBO types are booked constantly from April to October.  It’s hard to find an open one. Due to land constraints, there is only one nice hotel in the villahe and that, too, is consistently booked during the six months of tourist season. Those six months are what floats the winter months for the small businesses and such.  Tourism has skyrocketed since short term rentals became a thing.

But locals can’t find a place to live, but without the tourists, most of us couldn’t afford to live there anyway. Even those of us who aren’t directly affected by tourism benefits, for example, the ambulance company puts on extra crews from April-October, which means I’m able to make more money.  So the whole thing is a catch 22 without any good answers.  The industries of my parents and grandparents years are gone.

[Heartstrings]

26 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

So I have no idea what the answer is but I’ve been thinking about this.

We lived in a town who’s primary industry is tourism, and seasonal tourism at that.  In the years we lived there the housing market went from normal when we bought in 2010 to almost no houses or apartments available today.  Air BnBs and short term rentals have taken over the area to the point locals either have been priced out or just cannot afford the homes.

However: all of those short term rental/VRBO types are booked constantly from April to October.  It’s hard to find an open one. Due to land constraints, there is only one nice hotel in the villahe and that, too, is consistently booked during the six months of tourist season. Those six months are what floats the winter months for the small businesses and such.  Tourism has skyrocketed since short term rentals became a thing.

But locals can’t find a place to live, but without the tourists, most of us couldn’t afford to live there anyway. Even those of us who aren’t directly affected by tourism benefits, for example, the ambulance company puts on extra crews from April-October, which means I’m able to make more money.  So the whole thing is a catch 22 without any good answers.  The industries of my parents and grandparents years are gone.

That’s a good point.  More building overall benefits everyone though.  There are ways to handle it besides just a free for all where investors have all of advantage.  A tourist district, permits for  short term rentals to keep the numbers in check, Im sure there are all kinds of possible schemes that could be thought up, especially in a tourist town.  

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

That’s a good point.  More building overall benefits everyone though.  There are ways to handle it besides just a free for all where investors have all of advantage.  A tourist district, permits for  short term rentals to keep the numbers in check, Im sure there are all kinds of possible schemes that could be thought up, especially in a tourist town.  

The town I’m speaking specifically of is on one of the Fingerlakes in NY and there is literally no land to expand on.  It’s a lake surrounded by some land which is in turn surrounded by national forests and protected waterways and wetlands.

We have a rental house there that we will be selling, but I also know it will probably be snatched up by someone wanting to flip it into short term rentals.

[scholastica]

2 hours ago, DawnM said:

@Katy   Interesting and timely article:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/16/economy/boomers-own-more-larger-homes-than-millennial-families/index.html

I saw this article and I’ve seen others like it. This notion in the headline that one generation is somehow obligated to vacate their property to accommodate the next is a novel one. Since assisted living and nursing home care is so outrageously expensive, it makes good financial sense for boomers to live in their paid off homes for as long as possible. They worked hard to pay off their homes, why shouldn’t they get to decide how long to hold onto them?

 

I think the housing market is a mess right now, a lot of due to investors scooping up foreclosures in the 2008 crash. Those were turned into rentals and are not available for sale.  Then the problem of no-one building affordable housing, as was mentioned. Add to that C grade apartments being renovated to B or even A grade and rents on those getting jacked up and the market is completely out of whack. We are currently short 4,000,000 units of affordable housing in this country. 

All that to say that that’s not the fault of those who bought their homes, stayed put, and paid them off and  now want to enjoy that as long as possible. 

[DawnM]

5 minutes ago, scholastica said:

I saw this article and I’ve seen others like it. This notion in the headline that one generation is somehow obligated to vacate their property to accommodate the next is a novel one. Since assisted living and nursing home care is so outrageously expensive, it makes good financial sense for boomers to live in their paid off homes for as long as possible. They worked hard to pay off their homes, why shouldn’t they get to decide how long to hold onto them?

That isn't how I read it, but I can see how that could be a conclusion for the article. I guess I just took it as, "they aren't moving out, so don't wait around....." 😂

5 minutes ago, scholastica said:

 

I think the housing market is a mess right now, a lot of due to investors scooping up foreclosures in the 2008 crash. Those were turned into rentals and are not available for sale.  Then the problem of no-one building affordable housing, as was mentioned. Add to that C grade apartments being renovated to B or even A grade and rents on those getting jacked up and the market is completely out of whack. We are currently short 4,000,000 units of affordable housing in this country. 

All that to say that that’s not the fault of those who bought their homes, stayed put, and paid them off and  now want to enjoy that as long as possible. 

That is a staggering number!

I know when we were looking for our current house, there weren't a lot of options.   But I chalked that up to people wanting to stay put due to interest rates.   That may not have been the only reason.

[KungFuPanda]

3 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

So I have no idea what the answer is but I’ve been thinking about this.

We lived in a town who’s primary industry is tourism, and seasonal tourism at that.  In the years we lived there the housing market went from normal when we bought in 2010 to almost no houses or apartments available today.  Air BnBs and short term rentals have taken over the area to the point locals either have been priced out or just cannot afford the homes.

However: all of those short term rental/VRBO types are booked constantly from April to October.  It’s hard to find an open one. Due to land constraints, there is only one nice hotel in the villahe and that, too, is consistently booked during the six months of tourist season. Those six months are what floats the winter months for the small businesses and such.  Tourism has skyrocketed since short term rentals became a thing.

But locals can’t find a place to live, but without the tourists, most of us couldn’t afford to live there anyway. Even those of us who aren’t directly affected by tourism benefits, for example, the ambulance company puts on extra crews from April-October, which means I’m able to make more money.  So the whole thing is a catch 22 without any good answers.  The industries of my parents and grandparents years are gone.

I live in a town that never allowed short term rentals at all and we still have a housing shortage. 

36 minutes ago, DawnM said:

That isn't how I read it, but I can see how that could be a conclusion for the article. I guess I just took it as, "they aren't moving out, so don't wait around....." 😂

That is a staggering number!

I know when we were looking for our current house, there weren't a lot of options.   But I chalked that up to people wanting to stay put due to interest rates.   That may not have been the only reason.

I read similar comments locally but the tone was Boomers were being excessive and wasteful taking up all that square footage and property in a good school district. We’re Gen Xers, not empty nesters. Our house isn’t even paid for yet. I’m certainly not going to vacate it before I enjoy owning it free and clear. 

[Pawz4me]

59 minutes ago, scholastica said:

I saw this article and I’ve seen others like it. This notion in the headline that one generation is somehow obligated to vacate their property to accommodate the next is a novel one. Since assisted living and nursing home care is so outrageously expensive, it makes good financial sense for boomers to live in their paid off homes for as long as possible. They worked hard to pay off their homes, why shouldn’t they get to decide how long to hold onto them?

I read the article the same way you did. The only thing that kinda sorta saved it was that it did say (essentially) "but where the heck would they move to, because there's really almost nothing available." That was very slightly redeeming.

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

2 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

I live in a town that never allowed short term rentals at all and we still have a housing shortage. 

I read similar comments locally but the tone was Boomers were being excessive and wasteful taking up all that square footage and property in a good school district. We’re Gen Xers, not empty nesters. Our house isn’t even paid for yet. I’m certainly not going to vacate it before I enjoy owning it free and clear. 

This makes me wonder, I guess, because I read so many articles about how short term rentals are the problem.  

Where are the elderly supposed to go? Retirement housing and assisted living are beyond expensive.  Perhaps it’s an unexpected consequence of people living longer overall?  My mother’s family tends to be long lived but usually wound up sharing a large farmhouse with a son or daughter and their children at some point. My dad’s family rarely lived to 75.  

My sisters Mennonite in laws expect to build a small apartment onto their large house and that one of their children will then move into the large house while the parents move into the small attached apartment until they pass.  But I don’t really see that catching on in mainstream society.

[Heartstrings]

9 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

This makes me wonder, I guess, because I read so many articles about how short term rentals are the problem.

Everything I’ve read points to several different factors all adding up to a housing shortage.  Short term rentals are part, people living longer plays a part, corporations buying up the housing supply is part, zoning laws not allowing property owners to add apartments above the garage or a MIL quarters out back,  cultural change against renting out a room, etc.  Some of it is location specific, some of it is just that the problem has multiple causes all happening at once.  

Edited January 17 by Heartstrings

[Heartstrings]

3 hours ago, scholastica said:

I saw this article and I’ve seen others like it. This notion in the headline that one generation is somehow obligated to vacate their property to accommodate the next is a novel one. Since assisted living and nursing home care is so outrageously expensive, it makes good financial sense for boomers to live in their paid off homes for as long as possible. They worked hard to pay off their homes, why shouldn’t they get to decide how long to hold onto them?

 

I think the housing market is a mess right now, a lot of due to investors scooping up foreclosures in the 2008 crash. Those were turned into rentals and are not available for sale.  Then the problem of no-one building affordable housing, as was mentioned. Add to that C grade apartments being renovated to B or even A grade and rents on those getting jacked up and the market is completely out of whack. We are currently short 4,000,000 units of affordable housing in this country. 

All that to say that that’s not the fault of those who bought their homes, stayed put, and paid them off and  now want to enjoy that as long as possible. 

For me the key part of the article was 

“

This is a change from the historical norm, according to the research. Ten years ago young families were just as likely as empty nesters to own large homes.

“

It’s not that old people are obligated to vacate, it’s that we are at a pain point of demographic change.  Up until recently overall there was a predictable cycle, older people downsized, growing families bought those houses, vacating starter homes that young couples or singles bought, vacating rentals for newly minted adults.  It was a  relatively stable cycle over time and it has broken down for various reasons.  
 

A societal cycle has broken down.  It’s creating certain problems, how can we address them? There’s really no reason to be upset at the observers.  
 

Honestly a lot of older people would still like to downsize, but the interest rates mean people aren’t giving up the smaller homes either, making it financially not feasible for elders to downsize even if they want to.  That’s the thing about predictable cycles breaking, it causes pain for everyone.  

Edited January 17 by Heartstrings

[KungFuPanda]

20 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Everything I’ve read points to several different factors all adding up to a housing shortage.  Short term rentals are part, people living longer plays a part, corporations buying up the housing supply is part, zoning laws not allowing property owners to add apartments above the garage or a MIL quarters out back,  cultural change against renting out a room, etc.  Some of it is location specific, some of it is just that the problem has multiple causes all happening at once.  

And if you live somewhere where zoning allows you to add a garage apartment or in-law suite, good luck finding the labor to build it.  I’d actually LOVE to add an apartment and have my daughter, dsil, and dgs live in the big part of the house, but we’re not zoned for that and they live an hour away. 
 

I can’t imagine downsizing for at least 20 years. The new families on my street are carrying mortgages that are 3 times what we pay. I can’t face that market at any level. 

Edited January 17 by KungFuPanda

[Frances]

2 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

This makes me wonder, I guess, because I read so many articles about how short term rentals are the problem.  

Where are the elderly supposed to go? Retirement housing and assisted living are beyond expensive. 

I think the housing shortage is multifaceted, so multiple solutions will be needed to solve it. Under building since the Great Recession, people living longer, explosion in short term rentals and second homes, more companies and investors, especially from other countries, buying up housing as an investment, builders incentivized to build larger homes, etc. etc. And where I live, add very restrictive land use laws.

In terms of places to live in retirement, I think it depends where you live and what you are looking for. My mom lives in a one bedroom independent senior apartment in a very nice aging in place complex in the Midwest. She basically lives on her SS and a small amount of savings. Although her house had long been paid off, her current rent includes all utilities, so her expenses are quite low and she doesn’t have to worry about keeping a house or yard, paying property taxes and homeowners insurance, etc. She also doesn’t drive anymore so that is another expense gone.

At her place the apartments range from studios to three bedrooms with sun rooms and if they desire, people can pay to upgrade flooring and appliances. So there really is a very wide range of people, income wise, living at her place.

While I don’t think my husband would ever agree to it, I find the kind of place she lives highly appealing for when I’m older and retired.

[Frances]

2 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

I can’t imagine downsizing for at least 20 years. The new families on my street are carrying mortgages that are 3 times what we pay. I can’t face that market at any level. 

But if you’re downsizing, wouldn’t the sale of your larger home pay for the smaller home, no mortgage involved? I don’t think most people take on a mortgage when they downsize.

Edited January 17 by Frances

[Heartstrings]

40 minutes ago, Frances said:

But if you’re downsizing, wouldn’t the sale of your larger home pay for the smaller home, no mortgage involved? I don’t think most people take on a mortgage when they downsize.

I imagine that it’s really hard to decide to leave a 3000 sq ft house that you paid $150k for to buy a 2 bedroom 1000 sq ft house for $350k, even if you could pay cash for it.   House prices are so crazy.  

Edited January 17 by Heartstrings

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

I imagine that it’s really hard to decide to leave a 3000 sq ft house that you paid $150k for to buy a 2 bedroom 1000 sq ft house for $350k, even if you could pay cash for it.   House prices are so crazy.  

I guess so, but unless one paid the $150k in cash, they paid way more over the years than $150k for the house, not to mention all of the upkeep, improvements, etc. I can’t even fathom trying to keep up with a 3,000 sq ft house while elderly in terms of cleaning, utilities, insurance, repairs, yard work, maintenance, etc. Then again, I’m a minimalist and think a tiny house sounds great, so I don’t think I’m the average US consumer in any way at all.
 

And I see many of my elderly neighbors struggling to keep up with their homes, except for those who can easily afford to pay for absolutely everything to be done. Even then, they have to constantly deal with finding people, and it takes lots of time that could be spent doing far more enjoyable things. Seeing where my mom lives compared to their struggles makes her kind of place very, very appealing to me. Even my husband, who loves his shop, garage, and studio, was very taken by her place. And I absolutely love the economic diversity there. I would never want to live in any sort of exclusive or high end retirement place with only upper middle class and above people.

Edited January 17 by Frances

[Heartstrings]

6 minutes ago, Frances said:

I guess so, but unless one paid the $150k in cash, they paid way more over the years than $150k for the house, not to mention all of the upkeep, improvements, etc. I can’t even fathom trying to keep up with a 3,000 sq ft house while elderly in terms of cleaning, utilities, insurance, repairs, yard work, maintenance, etc. Then again, I’m a minimalist and think a tiny house sounds great, so I don’t think I’m the average US consumer in any way at all.
 

And I see many of my elderly neighbors struggling to keep up with their homes, except for those who can easily afford to pay for absolutely everything to be done. Even then, they have to constantly deal with finding people, and it takes lots of time that could be spent doing far more enjoyable things. Seeing where my mom lives compared to their struggles makes her kind of place very, very appealing to me. 

People aren’t rational about money and numbers.   Sure they can pay cash for the smaller house but it feels weird to pay so much for so little.  

Realistically the junk is probably the hardest part for them.   You can’t take everything with you when you downsize and their kids don’t want it.  Having to take 5 sets of fancy dishes to goodwill is just too much for some people.  They’d rather stay put than part with the stuff.  I read articles all the time about the amount of stuff that is coming down the pipeline as boomers pass.  So much of it will end up in the land fill.  Even if every Gen X, Millenial and Gen Zer took a set of dishes  there are more dish sets than homes!   Especially if the boomers have the big homes so their kids are in smaller homes with no room for extra sets of dishes.  (Why did people ever need 5 sets of dishes? )

[Frances]

Just now, Heartstrings said:

People aren’t rational about money and numbers.   Sure they can pay cash for the smaller house but it feels weird to pay so much for so little.  

Realistically the junk is probably the hardest part for them.   You can’t take everything with you when you downsize and their kids don’t want it.  Having to take 5 sets of fancy dishes to goodwill is just too much for some people.  They’d rather stay put than part with the stuff.  I read articles all the time about the amount of stuff that is coming down the pipeline as boomers pass.  So much of it will end up in the land fill.  Even if every Gen X, Millenial and Gen Zer took a set of dishes  there are more dish sets than homes!   Especially if the boomers have the big homes so their kids are in smaller homes with no room for extra sets of dishes.  (Why did people ever need 5 sets of dishes? )

I can definitely see this. My mom was lucky in that she had one grandchild who wanted all of the fancy dishes and extra kitchen stuff, another who wanted most of the furniture, and me who wanted many of the handmade linens and blankets. But she still has two on-site storage units, although one is free with her rent. Even though we aren’t even retired yet, I keep reminding my husband that we need to be getting rid of more than we acquire. It’s easy for me because I don’t like most stuff and find having it around stressful, but harder for him.

[SKL]

4 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

This is a change from the historical norm, according to the research. Ten years ago young families were just as likely as empty nesters to own large homes.

“

It’s not that old people are obligated to vacate, it’s that we are at a pain point of demographic change.  Up until recently overall there was a predictable cycle, older people downsized, growing families bought those houses, vacating starter homes that young couples or singles bought, vacating rentals for newly minted adults.  It was a  relatively stable cycle over time and it has broken down for various reasons.  
 

Why did young families start buying such large homes though?  I wondered about that when I was a young adult.  Most people were buying way more house than they needed or could really afford.

The average number of kids per U.S. family has been less than 2 for a long time now.  Most families don't need that much house.  It also puts a strain on the environment, public works, etc.

As for elderly people being expected to move out of their homes?  Have we forgotten that owning that home was probably their "American dream" that they worked decades for?  If they are happy in their house, let them stay.  That isn't some new strange idea.  I think the idea of elderly people downsizing is a newer idea.  Not that it's a bad idea for some, but it's not a societal duty, especially if they are able to maintain the asset reasonably well.  Their kids can stay and help the parents maintain / improve the home, or they can go find their own starter homes.

I don't know much about the housing market in general, but I'm fairly sure it varies by location.  I don't personally know anyone who has had trouble finding decent accommodations for a reasonable price.  But then, most of the people I know don't intend to move around a lot.  They want to buy a house and live in it until they die, if possible.

[Heartstrings]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Why did young families start buying such large homes though?  I wondered about that when I was a young adult.  Most people were buying way more house than they needed or could really afford.

The average number of kids per U.S. family has been less than 2 for a long time now.  Most families don't need that much house.  It also puts a strain on the environment, public works, etc.

As for elderly people being expected to move out of their homes?  Have we forgotten that owning that home was probably their "American dream" that they worked decades for?  If they are happy in their house, let them stay.  That isn't some new strange idea.  I think the idea of elderly people downsizing is a newer idea.  Not that it's a bad idea for some, but it's not a societal duty, especially if they are able to maintain the asset reasonably well.  Their kids can stay and help the parents maintain / improve the home, or they can go find their own starter homes.

I

I don’t get this.  Current families wanting larger homes for kids to grow up in is wasteful but elderly people living in those larger homes is the American Dream?  Presumably the elderly people in the larger houses today also bought them as younger families wanting to raise children, so was it wasteful for them? Like you said the average number of kids has been 2 for awhile, so they probably also bought the houses to only raise 2 kids in.   At what point did it go from the American Dream to wasteful and a strain on infrastructure?  
 

You say you noticed it as a child so families wanting larger homes to raise kids in isn’t new.  McMansions were a 80s/90s thing.  I’m almost 40, I was a child in the 90s, so it was at least my parents generation buying those.  That was over 30 years ago so those are the elders we’re talking about.  Not young people today wanting to raise families.  
 

I didn’t say it was a societal duty for older people to leave their homes.  I said it’s the cycle.  Old people vacate houses eventually , some downsize to move near family, to move to a condo in Florida, to move to assisted living or a nursing home, or because they die.   That adds to the housing inventory cycle.  Due to longer lives, not wanting to downsize, needing the house for boomerang children, for whatever reason, they aren’t doing that as quickly as they once did.  That’s not to say they should be forced to leave, it’s an observation of a new reality, that changed relatively recently. I don’t understand the emotion behind that observation.

No one has the same problem over the observation that short term rentals play a part in the housing shortage. Or the building slow down in 08. Or even zoning laws.  

 

 

 

Edited January 17 by Heartstrings

[Pawz4me]

7 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

For me the key part of the article was 

“

This is a change from the historical norm, according to the research. Ten years ago young families were just as likely as empty nesters to own large homes.

“

Up until recently overall there was a predictable cycle, older people downsized, growing families bought those houses, vacating starter homes that young couples or singles bought, vacating rentals for newly minted adults.  It was a  relatively stable cycle over time and it has broken down for various reasons.

I don't think that's ever been particularly true in my area. I'm over 60 and can only remember a very small number (low single digits) of older people who have moved once their kids were grown and gone. I can't think of a single relative on either side of my family who downsized. My parents had a family friend who sold a beautiful older Craftsman style house in a great neighborhood and moved into a seniors type apartment, but I don't really know the particulars of that. I always thought it was due to finances and was a "have to" situation, but I wasn't close enough to her to know for sure. I think it's possible I assumed it was a "have to" situation because it was (to me) such an unusual thing.

 

5 hours ago, Frances said:

But if you’re downsizing, wouldn’t the sale of your larger home pay for the smaller home, no mortgage involved? I don’t think most people take on a mortgage when they downsize.

Not always. Many newer 1600-1800 square feet, one level townhomes here are currently priced more than our well kept, 30 year old, 2200+ square feet house on a nicely landscaped half acre of land in a desirable area would likely sell for. Plus we know our house is well built. We watch these new cookie cutter type townhome developments building units in 30-60 days and it makes one wonder how they'll hold up. The common wisdom here among many older people (which I'm not sure is correct, but is said so often, and often by people who know more than a little about construction, that it does make one wonder) is that that type of construction will be falling apart in ten years. Maybe that's not true, but essentially trading "even Steven" a roomy, well built home with enough outside space for piddling around but that's not overwhelming to maintain for much less space with unknown/questionable quality of construction, and where an HOA is going to dictate what you can/can't do . . that can be a heavy lift for lots of people.

[DawnM]

33 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

 

Not always. Many newer 1600-1800 square feet, one level townhomes here are currently priced more than our well kept, 30 year old, 2200+ square feet house on a nicely landscaped half acre of land in a desirable area would likely sell for. Plus we know our house is well built. We watch these new cookie cutter type townhome developments building units in 30-60 days and it makes one wonder how they'll hold up. The common wisdom here among many older people (which I'm not sure is correct, but is said so often, and often by people who know more than a little about construction, that it does make one wonder) is that that type of construction will be falling apart in ten years. Maybe that's not true, but essentially trading "even Steven" a roomy, well built home with enough outside space for piddling around but that's not overwhelming to maintain for much less space with unknown/questionable quality of construction, and where an HOA is going to dictate what you can/can't do . . that can be a heavy lift for lots of people.

Right.

My aunt and uncle are 80 (birthdays this year) and have considered moving to a retirement community, but the cost is outrageous.   Their house has been paid off for about 20 years and they are very comfortable there for now.   It is around 2000 sq. ft I would say.   3 bedrooms, living room, den, kitchen, dining room and 2.5 bathrooms.   

 

[DawnM]

5 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

People aren’t rational about money and numbers.   Sure they can pay cash for the smaller house but it feels weird to pay so much for so little.  

Realistically the junk is probably the hardest part for them.   You can’t take everything with you when you downsize and their kids don’t want it.  Having to take 5 sets of fancy dishes to goodwill is just too much for some people.  They’d rather stay put than part with the stuff.  I read articles all the time about the amount of stuff that is coming down the pipeline as boomers pass.  So much of it will end up in the land fill.  Even if every Gen X, Millenial and Gen Zer took a set of dishes  there are more dish sets than homes!   Especially if the boomers have the big homes so their kids are in smaller homes with no room for extra sets of dishes.  (Why did people ever need 5 sets of dishes? )

Dishes......China sets.......remember when they were so important to have.   My mother was horrified that I didn't want a fancy set of dishes on my wedding registry.   Then she kept telling me that I would inherit hers......her fancy set and her everyday set.   Well, dad didn't realize the fancy set was quite so fancy and donated it to the thrift store before he moved to NC.   He did bring the everyday set and I am glad he did because every time I used those dishes he was like a little kid with excitement over something my mom had loved so much.   They aren't even my style, but I will keep them.   They are the Friendly Village set.   She had so many pieces to it.   Dad broke several as he didn't pack them too well, but I have enough to fill my small china cabinet.

But yes, junk.   We "lost" 1/3 of a house and are now trying very hard to purge.   It isn't easy.  I am not so great at letting things go.

[Carrie12345]

5 hours ago, SKL said:

Why did young families start buying such large homes though?  I wondered about that when I was a young adult.  Most people were buying way more house than they needed or could really afford.

Using the stated “ten years ago”, my house (not large, but as a point of data) was valued at 71.5% of what I paid for it 9 years earlier. That was up from when it was <50%. In 2013 +/-, many areas were still reeling, and it only made sense to get a good house cheap even if you didn’t have a gaggle of kids. Especially if you had witnessed people buy “starter” homes and get stuck in them with a gaggle of growing kids!

Today, its estimated value is 150% of what we paid. Meeting with a realtor this morning to get better numbers on its current condition.

[Carrie12345]

1 hour ago, Pawz4me said:

don't think that's ever been particularly true in my area. I'm over 60 and can only remember a very small number (low single digits) of older people who have moved once their kids were grown and gone. I can't think of a single relative on either side of my family who downsized. My parents had a family friend who sold a beautiful older Craftsman style house in a great neighborhood and moved into a seniors type apartment, but I don't really know the particulars of that. I always thought it was due to finances and was a "have to" situation, but I wasn't close enough to her to know for sure. I think it's possible I assumed it was a "have to" situation because it was (to me) such an unusual thing.

How far back do we go for our own anecdotal observations? My great-grandmother moved in with my grandmother for help before needing skilled care. Grandma lived in the family home until she died.  
My great-grandfather on the other side moved in with my mom’s family until he died.  
My grandparents on that side had an apartment built into my aunt’s house until after Grandpa died and Grandma needed skilled care.

My mom and stepdad thought about downsizing, but their house and yard aren’t all that large and they decided the numbers didn’t help.  
I planned this house to give flexibility to age in place unless/until we actually can’t. I’m not a house is a house person, I’m a this is my home person. Why would I plan to leave just because?

(As my emotions eat me up about finally listing our previous home 😢.)

[Tenaj]

5 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

Realistically the junk is probably the hardest part for them.   You can’t take everything with you when you downsize and their kids don’t want it.  Having to take 5 sets of fancy dishes to goodwill is just too much for some people.  They’d rather stay put than part with the stuff.  I read articles all the time about the amount of stuff that is coming down the pipeline as boomers pass.  So much of it will end up in the land fill.  Even if every Gen X, Millenial and Gen Zer took a set of dishes  there are more dish sets than homes!   Especially if the boomers have the big homes so their kids are in smaller homes with no room for extra sets of dishes.  (Why did people ever need 5 sets of dishes? )

This is kind of off subject but we are facing this right now and the problem isn't that one couple had five sets of fancy dishes (at least in our family), it's that Grandma kept her mother's set of fancy dishes and then got her own when she was married and my dh's aunt kept the set from her grandma and aunt (who had no kids) and got her own set so now that aunt is 84 and needs to get rid of stuff we have to figure out what the heck to do with all these dishes that have so much sentimental value to the elders in the family but absolutely none for us other than a "that's cool" vibe.  I don't have room to store this crap.  This doesn't even factor in my mother-in-law's set and my own mom's set.

[QueenCat]

8 hours ago, Frances said:

But if you’re downsizing, wouldn’t the sale of your larger home pay for the smaller home, no mortgage involved? I don’t think most people take on a mortgage when they downsize.

Maybe? I suppose we'll pay cash, but it will likely be most of what we get for the house we sell. When we downsize, I will want the house to be new or very close to it so that we aren't dealing with more than maintenance for a long while. That said, we currently have almost 4000 sq. ft. plus a finished basement. I'm in my late 50s, dh will be 60 in a few days. We hope to be able to manage this house for another 20 years. We love our space and our backyard is amazing.

And our youngest will likely live with us until we can't help him & he needs to move in with his brother OR we find a way for him to live on his own with support. We like him having the finished basement so he can hang out on his own, without his parents all of the time.

[Scarlett]

7 hours ago, Frances said:

I guess so, but unless one paid the $150k in cash, they paid way more over the years than $150k for the house, not to mention all of the upkeep, improvements, etc. I can’t even fathom trying to keep up with a 3,000 sq ft house while elderly in terms of cleaning, utilities, insurance, repairs, yard work, maintenance, etc. Then again, I’m a minimalist and think a tiny house sounds great, so I don’t think I’m the average US consumer in any way at all.
 

And I see many of my elderly neighbors struggling to keep up with their homes, except for those who can easily afford to pay for absolutely everything to be done. Even then, they have to constantly deal with finding people, and it takes lots of time that could be spent doing far more enjoyable things. Seeing where my mom lives compared to their struggles makes her kind of place very, very appealing to me. Even my husband, who loves his shop, garage, and studio, was very taken by her place. And I absolutely love the economic diversity there. I would never want to live in any sort of exclusive or high end retirement place with only upper middle class and above people.

I think more like you…..in my old age I definitely would be happy in your mom's situation.  Dh would not.

I see soooooo many older ones struggling to keep up with a big house and waiting too long to downsize. I just witnessed this with an 88 year old man in our congregation.  His very sickly wife died a year and a half ago and he talked briefly about selling his home and moving to an apartment, but then he got colon cancer and died two weeks ago,  

Edited January 17 by Scarlett

[elegantlion]

My mom's situation is pretty indicative of our housing market. I live in what is supposed to be Low COL area with a depressed economy - we're losing population according to the last census. 

She bought her house in late 2016. The listing price for a move-in condition (cosmetic repairs needed) 2500 sf house built in 1889 was 110k. The house had been on the market for months by the time she made the offer. That same house could be listed at over 250k today. That's an unprecedented % increase in our area. What is selling for 110k now is not even worth looking at because of location or repairs needed. We have a dearth of affordable or reliable contractors. Most homes need some work, many are selling as-is. New homes are limited and generally listed at over 300k. 

the housing market in our area started ramping up about 2 years ago and prices have not even leveled out. Move-in conditions homes are still selling while the poor condition homes are sitting - generally vacant - longer. We have a huge number of homes built in the early part of the 20th century. I fear many of those can't sell, vacant properties will become impossible to repair and then torn down. It seems like landlords are selling at a higher rate than normal, trying to dump small or run-down properties. 

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, Tenaj said:

This is kind of off subject but we are facing this right now and the problem isn't that one couple had five sets of fancy dishes (at least in our family), it's that Grandma kept her mother's set of fancy dishes and then got her own when she was married and my dh's aunt kept the set from her grandma and aunt (who had no kids) and got her own set so now that aunt is 84 and needs to get rid of stuff we have to figure out what the heck to do with all these dishes that have so much sentimental value to the elders in the family but absolutely none for us other than a "that's cool" vibe.  I don't have room to store this crap.  This doesn't even factor in my mother-in-law's set and my own mom's set.

I have Dh’s grandmothers set in my linen closet.  It has been there for 10 years.  I keep hoping to find a way to display it but it is a problem.

[SHP]

Here there was a shift towards living in smaller homes, condos, apartments while raising a family. Many were within a short walk of all kinds of places that provided families with things to do and stay active so home wasn't where they spent all day every day, it was more a place to make dinner and sleep. It was a lifestyle we had partially adopted. We used nearby community centers with indoor pools, basketball courts, classes and so much more. We frequently walled or biked trails nearby. Then covid hit and I was so happy to have a larger house. I cannot imagine how we would have managed.

Now? I recognize that buying a house will be difficult for our children. We plan to keep this house for our children. 

[SKL]

8 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

I don’t get this.  Current families wanting larger homes for kids to grow up in is wasteful but elderly people living in those larger homes is the American Dream?  Presumably the elderly people in the larger houses today also bought them as younger families wanting to raise children, so was it wasteful for them? Like you said the average number of kids has been 2 for awhile, so they probably also bought the houses to only raise 2 kids in.   At what point did it go from the American Dream to wasteful and a strain on infrastructure?  
 

You say you noticed it as a child so families wanting larger homes to raise kids in isn’t new.  McMansions were a 80s/90s thing.  I’m almost 40, I was a child in the 90s, so it was at least my parents generation buying those.  That was over 30 years ago so those are the elders we’re talking about.  Not young people today wanting to raise families.  
 

I didn’t say it was a societal duty for older people to leave their homes.  I said it’s the cycle.  Old people vacate houses eventually , some downsize to move near family, to move to a condo in Florida, to move to assisted living or a nursing home, or because they die.   That adds to the housing inventory cycle.  Due to longer lives, not wanting to downsize, needing the house for boomerang children, for whatever reason, they aren’t doing that as quickly as they once did.  That’s not to say they should be forced to leave, it’s an observation of a new reality, that changed relatively recently. I don’t understand the emotion behind that observation.

I said I wondered about it as a young adult.  Specifically, the thought was in my mind when I was about 25 (early 1990s) - I remember because a colleague had just gotten married, had no kids, neither spouse had a college degree, but they bought a relatively new, 4+ bedroom, 2-story house.  I looked around, and apparently it was the thing for young couples to do at that time.  When I moved to a professional services firm, it was even more pronounced (wasteful in my eyes).

By contrast, my folks' current house was purchased in 1979 when they had 6 kids (ages 0-16).  Their previous house was about half the size, bought when they had only 3.5 kids and weren't expecting more; maybe they intended that previous house to be their final one, but things changed.  Anyhoo, my folks set about making their "new house" (built in 1919) their dream home.  My dad put a ton of work into making the foundation sounder / basement dryer, adding insulation, etc.  My mom redecorated to reflect her tastes and preferences.  After many years, they finally paid off the house around the time my dad retired.

For about the first 20 years, the house was a place for my folks to sacrifice for their kids.  Even after that, there would be some kid living there in transition, or a grandbaby needing care while her mom and new sister were living in the NICU, and my mom never did stop doing a kid's laundry, storing some of their stuff, having Christmas there, etc.  However, come retirement, my folks could finally just relax and enjoy their home for a little while before health problems screwed that up too.  My dad has converted most of the basement into an elaborate workshop, and he enjoys having a piano to play.  My mom has filled many shelves with audiobooks and movies she has collected.  My mom almost never leaves the house, is legally blind, and can't stand on her feet for more than a few minutes, so purging to downsize would be a huge ask, even if it were financially viable (which is not a given).  Do they still use all of their floor space, no, but so what?  Do new young couples really want a big old house that badly?  Why would they?

Why isn't the question - "why do some families have multiple dwellings?"  Nobody needs that?  The people who own a vacation house that sits empty much of the year - why aren't they the ones causing the housing shortage in those locations?  Why are we picking on old people who are just trying to enjoy the one asset they invested in all their working life?

Edited January 17 by SKL

[DawnM]

5 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

I don't think that's ever been particularly true in my area. I'm over 60 and can only remember a very small number (low single digits) of older people who have moved once their kids were grown and gone. I can't think of a single relative on either side of my family who downsized. My parents had a family friend who sold a beautiful older Craftsman style house in a great neighborhood and moved into a seniors type apartment, but I don't really know the particulars of that. I always thought it was due to finances and was a "have to" situation, but I wasn't close enough to her to know for sure. I think it's possible I assumed it was a "have to" situation because it was (to me) such an unusual thing.

Interesting.   My grandmother on my mom's side did not move but my grandparents on my dad's side moved into an assisted living apartment fairly young and stayed there until they passed away.

5 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

 

Not always. Many newer 1600-1800 square feet, one level townhomes here are currently priced more than our well kept, 30 year old, 2200+ square feet house on a nicely landscaped half acre of land in a desirable area would likely sell for. Plus we know our house is well built. We watch these new cookie cutter type townhome developments building units in 30-60 days and it makes one wonder how they'll hold up. The common wisdom here among many older people (which I'm not sure is correct, but is said so often, and often by people who know more than a little about construction, that it does make one wonder) is that that type of construction will be falling apart in ten years. Maybe that's not true, but essentially trading "even Steven" a roomy, well built home with enough outside space for piddling around but that's not overwhelming to maintain for much less space with unknown/questionable quality of construction, and where an HOA is going to dictate what you can/can't do . . that can be a heavy lift for lots of people.