S/O Capitalism/Humanity/Greed

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, SHP said:

Poverty is code for black and brown people from people who don't want to sound racist.

It can be. True. But that doesn’t mean it always is. There are areas of my county that have at least as many light skinned people as darker and the key to them not getting equal services is bottom line - income disparity. IOW. They are poor neighborhoods.  Neighborhoods that don’t have HOAs that will pay for community upkeep and also don’t have a tax incentive to either entice the city to do build things like sidewalks or attract big businesses.  Idc what shade they are - the bottom line is there’s no profit to being there. Not for them. Not for business. And not for the city. 

You can drive down main street here and down the expensive shopping corridors and see plenty of homeless people. Most are white. And let me assure you, they get plenty of hate. 
 

I’m telling you I have seen and heard it.  At least people will have enough shame to try to hide that they are racist. They make no such effort for how horribly they think of poor people.

Which is neither here nor there to my point.

No one in this thread is being racist or denying racism exists.

But let’s be real too. There’s plenty of varieties of hate.  Claiming white people who are actively wanting positive change that benefits everyone are racists bc you presume they didn’t care at some other point just seems an effort to thwart improvements and propagate ill-will.

 

1 hour ago, SHP said:

White people policies ensured generational poverty of minorities and they used housing restrictions to do it.

Sure did. Gerrymandering and zoning is a problem. I have not read anyone here who disagrees with that at all. Those policies ensured that elites didn’t have to look at where those below them economically or politically lived. Be it race or economics.  It’s not like Tulsa is not known internationally for a history of racism.

1 hour ago, SHP said:

I am 100% positive that the black people who have been working for the past two decades (that I have been aware) for grocery stores in their neighborhoods would love reliable transit and closer stores, like Target, let's pick on Target since I have to go there today. Target doesn't want to go to Those Places. If they did they would already be there.

1 hour ago, SHP said:

The public transit and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure here is halfway decent when serving the white areas. The poor/brown/black/disabled areas? Not so much. I have noticed this in other places as well, if I am frustrated with how infrequent and unreliable a bus is you can bet when I finally board one that there aren't any white people on it.

Again  because people in poverty can’t afford to shop at Target.  It s a huge problem when the only grocery store access people have is dollar stores.  Which ironically enough for their name, can be some of the most expensive places to shop for necessities in those areas.  And they have a hard time staying open bc the theft and robberies are on the daily.  It’s a conundrum bc desperate poor people and people lacking mental health services are forced into a ghetto by economics and then is becomes “that area of town” that is crime riddled  but if you send more cops - not even the cops are happy about it.  And you can attract stores to the area but once the tax incentives end - they leave bc it flat out is not profitable for them to stay there.  Businesses want to make money.  If they could make money there - suddenly they wouldn’t care about race  as much as money.  Maybe I’m just cynical to think that.

Which is why I said a lot of housing problems would be resolved or avoided if zoning mandated a hot mix within every 3-5 miles.  There’d be a target there bc even if there’s a lower cost apartment complex and some smaller houses, there’d also be a lot of other mixed in.  The balance would make it better for everyone.  Think of it as economic desegregation via zoning.   

 

Edited March 7 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I’m not sure that building ‘up’ makes much sense where civil services like electricity are intermittent.

if we are talking straight housing costs - it’s always cheaper to go up. My same 2 story house in square footage built as a 1 story would more than double the cost.

1 hour ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I live in Silicon Valley, and when we had several day power outages last month there were apartment buildings where the water supply stopped immediately because to generate enough pressure to get the water to the higher floors required electrically powered pumps, unbeknownst to just about everyone.  

The last time there was a semi major earthquake here, the power plant that supplied the whole area was knocked out.  Power was restored within a day or so, IIRC, but that was only because a Major Tech Company happened to have a lot of kerosene powered generators, enough to power the whole county, and volunteered to apply them to that purpose for a while.  Otherwise the power would have been out for several weeks.  

I once read a description of what would happen in downtown SF if there was a truly major earthquake.  All the high rises would have their windows broken out.  The streets would be full of broken glass, to a depth of 30 feet in some areas downtown, and impassible.  Meanwhile there would be no water supply to the stranded people inside and no reasonable way to evacuate them.

Yes. Well. Natural disasters are… disasters.  There are ways to build safer and better for the location needs.

But that aside - civil services are always underserved in rural and poor districts.  The federal government had to take the initiative to push for electricity and phone lines across America into rural areas bc frankly those areas were never going to get it on their own. During covid people were shocked that there’s still areas with no or not reliable internet access.  

And again, some of that could be improved with better zoning so that the low income aren’t segregated into entire areas that it’s then not profitable to serve. 
 

Edited March 7 by Murphy101

[SKL]

Not sure what's so great about Target.  I don't see Target solving any economic problems.

There are many government incentives to build more needed amenities in low-income neighborhoods.  My job is related to this, so I know this is happening locally and nationally.  I'm sure there's plenty of room for improvement.

[Carol in Cal.]

12 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

if we are talking straight housing costs - it’s always cheaper to go up. My same 2 story house in square footage built as a 1 story would more than double the cost.

Yes. Well. Natural disasters are… disasters.  There are ways to build safer and better for the location needs.

But that aside - civil services are always underserved in rural and poor districts.  The federal government had to take the initiative to push for electricity and phone lines across America into rural areas bc frankly those areas were never going to get it on their own. During covid people were shocked that there’s still areas with no or not reliable internet access.  

And again, some of that could be improved with better zoning so that the low income aren’t segregated into entire areas that it’s then not profitable to serve. 
 

We are not talking straight housing costs, though.  We are talking ‘cost of living there’ including risk management.

I don’t see that your comments about electricity are relevant.  The fact is, encouraging types of building that will leave people without water in a fairly frequent and predictable situation is irresponsible.

[Carrie12345]

2 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

Right. And I’m not entirely in disagreement with them pending the type of zoning they have. I think zoning should be a hot mix of type and sizes all within a 3-5 mile area. Within that 3-4 mile are should be big expensive-ish homes, smaller 1000sq ft houses, upscale appartments and Lowe scale apartments, parks and playgrounds, basic shopping, pedestrian access everywhere and several transit stops.  I also see little value in putty a tiny 400sq fr house on a normal sized lot. And I think building codes are legit worries. How is the local EMT going to get someone out of that place if they need help? I look at a lot of tiny houses and think, “That’s cute until they break a leg.”  

Which areas of the US have 5 mile long tracts of land that are ecologically buildable and not currently in use?

In my own immediate area, the largest unused but buildable lot is just shy of 40 acres.

FWIW, if my EMTs can work on people inside of crushed cars and inside of animal hordes trailers, I think they could handle a tiny house just fine.

[Corraleno]

More data on the effects of short term rentals:

In 2018, the city of Irvine, CA, banned all short term rentals of less than 30 days and (more importantly) they strictly enforced it. "After Irvine's ban went into effect, long-term rents in the city dropped by 3%, according to the study, a decrease of $114 a month on average.
.....
While the Irvine study showed that Airbnb bans can successfully drive down rents, numerous studies have shown the other side of the coin: When short-term rentals come to town, rents go up. A 2020 study on short-term rentals in Berlin found that apartments listed on Airbnb increased the rents of nearby units. A 2017 study in Boston came to a similar conclusion. Other studies have documented these impacts on rents nationwide, including research from 2021 that estimated that Airbnb listings accounted for one-fifth of rent growth in ZIP codes with a median share of people who own and occupy their home. "
https://www.businessinsider.com/airbnb-ban-makes-rents-housing-prices-drop-irvine-california-study-2023-11

[nikkibelle]

Before “we” sell public land to the highest bidder, let’s have a conversation about building housing where abandoned malls/retail/offices sit crumbling. 

[frogger]

Another problem with completely undeveloped land on the outskirts is the amount of money needed for expanding infastructure. 

I do think there are places where this could be useful but it just depends on the specific area's geography, economy,  existing infastructure, and current housing supply and demand. This is really a local issue where specific details need taken into account. 

[Murphy101]

5 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

We are not talking straight housing costs, though.  We are talking ‘cost of living there’ including risk management.

I don’t see that your comments about electricity are relevant.  The fact is, encouraging types of building that will leave people without water in a fairly frequent and predictable situation is irresponsible.

And we can reduce the risks of living but we can’t eliminate it.  I’m not encouraging buildings that will regularly leave them without water. We could consider better building and water systems.

5 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

Which areas of the US have 5 mile long tracts of land that are ecologically buildable and not currently in use?

I’m not talking unused tracts. There’s a LOT of area in many cities that is going vacant. Zoning codes could be adjusted to accommodate options that weren’t an option previously for those places.

But … yeah there’s lots of land here too.

The problem is t that there isn’t property to repurposed or reasoned. It’s that certain economic holders refuse to accept having diverse economic people living around them. 

5 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

In my own immediate area, the largest unused but buildable lot is just shy of 40 acres.

FWIW, if my EMTs can work on people inside of crushed cars and inside of animal hordes trailers, I think they could handle a tiny house just fine.

K🤷‍♀️

[Heartstrings]

5 hours ago, SKL said:

There are many government incentives to build more needed amenities in low-income neighborhoods.  My job is related to this, so I know this is happening locally and nationally.  I'm sure there's plenty of room for improvement.

The problem is the “missing middle”, as it always is. The average person who is not low income but is also not high income.  That $40-$80k a year lower middle class family that doesn’t qualify as low income but isn’t high enough income to afford to buy in inflated markets either. 

[Heartstrings]

11 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

d we can reduce the risks of living but we can’t eliminate it.  I’m not encouraging buildings that will regularly leave them without water. We could consider better building and water systems.

It’s not typical in most places in the US to lose power regularly. That’s a fairly unique situation.  The longest I’ve lost power in years was for about 3 hours when a car hit an electric post bc they were drunk.  Even if that had knocked out my water, 3 hours in 3 years would have been fine. Prior to that I haven’t been without power for longer than an hour or so in 25ish years. I know Cali is BIG and I big puffy heart love it but it’s not the whole country.  Building in my area to deal with earthquakes and frequent power outages would just be silly, as silly as hand wringing over the lack of tornado shelters in San Francisco would be.  

Edited March 7 by Heartstrings

[Murphy101]

58 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

It’s not typical in most places in the US to lose power regularly. That’s a fairly unique situation.  The longest I’ve lost power in years was for about 3 hours when a car hit an electric post bc they were drunk.  Even if that had knocked out my water, 3 hours in 3 years would have been fine. Prior to that I haven’t been without power for longer than an hour or so in 25ish years. I know Cali is BIG and I big puffy heart love it but it’s not the whole country.  Building in my area to deal with earthquakes and frequent power outages would just be silly, as silly as hand wringing over the lack of tornado shelters in San Francisco would be.  

Agreed. I’m just saying that it is possible to build better buildings for the given environment. 

[KungFuPanda]

10 hours ago, SHP said:

The only reason there is interest in the housing crisis is because middle class white people are impacted. No one cared about the struggles of black and brown people in relation to housing that have been an issue for decades.

There I said it. 

That’s not true. 

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

The problem is the “missing middle”, as it always is. The average person who is not low income but is also not high income.  That $40-$80k a year lower middle class family that doesn’t qualify as low income but isn’t high enough income to afford to buy in inflated markets either. 

Well ... I guess I'm ignorant because I've been "upwardly mobile."  When I was younger, living in a low-income neighborhood was perfectly acceptable to me, as long as I had reasonable access to things I needed, such as basic groceries.  I have friends who continued to live in such neighborhoods long after they could afford to move - perhaps they were saving for a house they'd enjoy retiring in.  The access to and cost of the groceries etc. does not discriminate based on income.

If we're talking about people who consider themselves too good to live in a low-income area while they are on the learning curve of life, I guess I just can't relate.

Then again, where I live, there are houses available in low-income areas.  They may not be House Beautiful, but they can be a respectable step (depending on what qualifies as "respectable" I guess).

[Heartstrings]

39 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well ... I guess I'm ignorant because I've been "upwardly mobile."  When I was younger, living in a low-income neighborhood was perfectly acceptable to me, as long as I had reasonable access to things I needed, such as basic groceries.  I have friends who continued to live in such neighborhoods long after they could afford to move - perhaps they were saving for a house they'd enjoy retiring in.  The access to and cost of the groceries etc. does not discriminate based on income.

If we're talking about people who consider themselves too good to live in a low-income area while they are on the learning curve of life, I guess I just can't relate.

Then again, where I live, there are houses available in low-income areas.  They may not be House Beautiful, but they can be a respectable step (depending on what qualifies as "respectable" I guess).

I wasn’t referring to ANY of that. I don’t even see how you jumped from what I said to what you wrote here.  
 

 You said you worked with programs for affordable housing for low income people.  I was just saying that houses that used to be affordable by the people one bracket up from low income are much harder to come by now.  The starter homes are snatched up by investors, the governmental assistance is geared for low income (which I have no problem with) and builders target high income families.  People with moderate incomes are being priced out in many areas.  Moderate income people usually can’t move into housing meant for low income families, there is usually an income limit to prevent that.

In most places I am familiar with the houses available in the “bad” part of town are in very poor condition and not everyone is handy enough to rebuild a house from scratch.  I drive through such a part weekly to take a shirt cut and those houses are falling down.  

Edited March 8 by Heartstrings

[Clarita]

30 minutes ago, SKL said:

The access to and cost of the groceries etc. does not discriminate based on income.

Actually in my location it does. So a lot of the low income neighborhoods are food deserts, devoid of grocery stores, the only stores around that even have food are liquor stores. Gas stations and grocery stores will not go into these neighborhoods. 

 

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

I wasn’t referring to ANY of that. I don’t even see how you jumped from what I said to what you wrote here.  
 

 You said you worked with programs for affordable housing for low income people.  I was just saying that houses that used to be affordable by the people one bracket up from low income are much harder to come by now.  The starter homes are snatched up by investors, the governmental assistance is geared for low income (which I have no problem with) and builders target high income families.  People with moderate incomes are being priced out in many areas.  Moderate income people usually can’t move into housing meant for low income families, there is usually an income limit to prevent that.

In most places I am familiar with the houses available in the “bad” part of town are in very poor condition and not everyone is handy enough to rebuild a house from scratch.  I drive through such a part weekly to take a shirt cut and those houses are falling down.  

This seems to assume that all the housing in low-income neighborhoods is subsidized housing.  I wasn't even talking about subsidized housing.  Where I live, there are plenty of houses in low-income neighborhoods that are not restricted to low income earners.

To me, the "bad" part of town is the part where it's too dangerous to live there because the population is mainly criminal druggies who will come and steal the siding off your house while you sleep.  Most low-income neighborhoods are not "bad" in that way.  The low-income neighborhoods I'd live in (or I'd be OK having my kids live in) are older neighborhoods full of modest family homes that are 50-100 years old, walkable to a bus line.

[Heartstrings]

10 minutes ago, SKL said:

This seems to assume that all the housing in low-income neighborhoods is subsidized housing.  I wasn't even talking about subsidized housing.  Where I live, there are plenty of houses in low-income neighborhoods that are not restricted to low income earners.

To me, the "bad" part of town is the part where it's too dangerous to live there because the population is mainly criminal druggies who will come and steal the siding off your house while you sleep.  Most low-income neighborhoods are not "bad" in that way.  The low-income neighborhoods I'd live in (or I'd be OK having my kids live in) are older neighborhoods full of modest family homes that are 50-100 years old, walkable to a bus line.

Have you looked at the price on those houses recently?  In a lot of places those are priced out of reach of an average earner.  We’ve been looking at relocating for a job and the number of places that we would be priced out of homeownership even while making low 6 figures is just astonishing, let alone on a more average salary.  We’ve looked at places where low 6 figures would leave you house poor if you bought a single wide trailer in a trailer park.  (There is nothing wrong with trailer parks, but they shouldn’t be unobtainably expensive). 
 

I’m definitely spoiled by the low cost of living in the south.    

Edited March 8 by Heartstrings

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Heartstrings said:

Have you looked at the price on those houses recently?  In a lot of places those are priced out of reach of an average earner.  We’ve been looking at relocating for a job and the number of places that we would be priced out of homeownership even while making low 6 figures is just astonishing.  I’m definitely spoiled by the low cost of living in the south.    

Yes, there are affordable options for people working full time, at least around here.

There are, however, many newer (<40/50yo) neighborhoods where all the houses are bigger than they need to be, and I assume they are not cheap.  Those aren't necessarily the best neighborhoods to live in, as they tend not to be walkable to amenities.  Around here, you're much more likely to be able to walk to a corner store or a bus stop in an older / low-income neighborhood.

[Carrie12345]

11 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

I’m not talking unused tracts. There’s a LOT of area in many cities that is going vacant. Zoning codes could be adjusted to accommodate options that weren’t an option previously for those places.

Okay, that was my question. I’m not personally familiar with such areas. I guess I’m aware of places like, say, Detroit, but I don’t know much.

From what I can see, it seems there needs to be a big public/private joint mission to make a few square miles both affordable and accessible. You can’t attract low-to-moderate (or higher) income earners without infrastructure in place, but the infrastructure isn’t economically sustainable until you attract people to the area. Entities need to be willing to take the risk.

[ArtHaus]

On 3/7/2024 at 8:19 AM, SHP said:

The only reason there is interest in the housing crisis is because middle class white people are impacted. No one cared about the struggles of black and brown people in relation to housing that have been an issue for decades.

There I said it. 

Absolutely.

That is and has been the real crisis. It seems that gentrification is back-firing for those who previously benefited. Aside from gentrification, black and brown people have always suffered from unfair housing practices (false inflation, higher interest rates, zoning, etc, etc). Those unfair practices that were rampant in the 20th century stymied black and brown people from building generational wealth via real estate. Consider what happened with jobs/housing during the Great Migration.

So yes, you are so so right. Now that “white” people are subject to some of those same woes, it is a dire issue…all of a sudden. Housing touches a lot of areas in life, ie education. Low income areas generally have subpar school systems, for example. Now your family is set in a certain trajectory, based on housing. Such has been the plight of black and brown through America’s history. 

What is good for the goose must be good for the gander. 

[Corraleno]

 

15 hours ago, SKL said:

If we're talking about people who consider themselves too good to live in a low-income area while they are on the learning curve of life, I guess I just can't relate.

Then again, where I live, there are houses available in low-income areas.  They may not be House Beautiful, but they can be a respectable step (depending on what qualifies as "respectable" I guess).

12 hours ago, SKL said:

This seems to assume that all the housing in low-income neighborhoods is subsidized housing.  I wasn't even talking about subsidized housing.  Where I live, there are plenty of houses in low-income neighborhoods that are not restricted to low income earners.

... The low-income neighborhoods I'd live in (or I'd be OK having my kids live in) are older neighborhoods full of modest family homes that are 50-100 years old, walkable to a bus line.

In many places, including my city, those modest 1000 sq' 50-100 yr old houses that you assume are available to young lower-income workers sell for over half a million dollars and rent for $2200-2600/month. A family with two full time workers earning $20/hr would be spending 50% of their take-home pay to rent a 1000 sq' house that hasn't been updated since 1978, and there's no way they could afford to buy it. The only options here for those who are truly low income are subsidized apartments, and there aren't nearly enough of those, with long waitlists.

There is a HUGE housing gap here for people who make what would be considered a decent middle class income by most metrics. The problem isn't that those folks "consider themselves too good to live in a low-income area," the problem is that there literally aren't any neighborhoods like that anywhere in the city. A family with a combined income of $80K is going to be paying ~35-40% of their income just to rent a small 2 BR apartment, and they will likely never be able to afford to buy a home here. 

[SKL]

18 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

There is a HUGE housing gap here for people who make what would be considered a decent middle class income by most metrics. The problem isn't that those folks "consider themselves too good to live in a low-income area," the problem is that there literally aren't any neighborhoods like that anywhere in the city. A family with a combined income of $80K is going to be paying ~35-40% of their income just to rent a small 2 BR apartment, and they will likely never be able to afford to buy a home here. 

I'm not disputing that there are some places that have a significant shortage of housing.  It's not a nationwide issue and certainly doesn't need a nationwide solution.

As for what percentage of one's income one can spend on housing - that really depends on a mix of economic factors, and I argue that there shouldn't be a "target %."  If you live in an area where housing is very expensive county-wide, you're obviously going to spend a higher % of your income on housing, but that doesn't automatically mean that you can't meet your other expenses on what's left.  And for folks on tight budgets, I don't think it's at all unusual to spend at least 50% of their income on housing, at least for a season of life.

The previously posted articles seem to indicate that stopping people from having VRBOs (or whatever term) can impact average rents in some locations between 1% and 3%.  That's a drop in the bucket IMO; it would probably be better to focus on solutions that have bigger impacts.  For example, projects that can help families safely and economically reclaim dying neighborhoods (if any exist in a given area).  Or building more sensible multi-family housing / housing projects for middle-income people.  Or improving mass transit so it's possible to live farther away while working in the city.

Ultimately, the market will have its say too.  People like me will simply never move to places where housing is ridiculously expensive.  I've had lots of opportunities for jobs etc.  No thanks.  It feels ridiculous to me.  I'm sorry for those who were born into such situations, but over time, as fewer people are willing to move there or stay there, the housing pressures should decrease.

Edited March 8 by SKL

[Heartstrings]

4 hours ago, Corraleno said:

In many places, including my city, those modest 1000 sq' 50-100 yr old houses that you assume are available to young lower-income workers sell for over half a million dollars and rent for $2200-2600/month. A family with two full time workers earning $20/hr would be spending 50% of their take-home pay to rent a 1000 sq' house that hasn't been updated since 1978, and there's no way they could afford to buy it

And people already spending 50% of their income on housing aren’t in a position to take on a “fixer upper” which is usually the next suggestion.  

[KungFuPanda]

6 hours ago, SKL said:

I'm not disputing that there are some places that have a significant shortage of housing.  It's not a nationwide issue and certainly doesn't need a nationwide solution.

As for what percentage of one's income one can spend on housing - that really depends on a mix of economic factors, and I argue that there shouldn't be a "target %."  If you live in an area where housing is very expensive county-wide, you're obviously going to spend a higher % of your income on housing, but that doesn't automatically mean that you can't meet your other expenses on what's left.  And for folks on tight budgets, I don't think it's at all unusual to spend at least 50% of their income on housing, at least for a season of life.

The previously posted articles seem to indicate that stopping people from having VRBOs (or whatever term) can impact average rents in some locations between 1% and 3%.  That's a drop in the bucket IMO; it would probably be better to focus on solutions that have bigger impacts.  For example, projects that can help families safely and economically reclaim dying neighborhoods (if any exist in a given area).  Or building more sensible multi-family housing / housing projects for middle-income people.  Or improving mass transit so it's possible to live farther away while working in the city.

Ultimately, the market will have its say too.  People like me will simply never move to places where housing is ridiculously expensive.  I've had lots of opportunities for jobs etc.  No thanks.  It feels ridiculous to me.  I'm sorry for those who were born into such situations, but over time, as fewer people are willing to move there or stay there, the housing pressures should decrease.

That’s a tough choice to make. I’m sure there ARE places with lots of affordable housing. Finding places like that that also have good job opportunities for young workers and decent school systems can be really tricky. Nobody wants to buy a house that would be difficult to sell and it stands to reason there will be more competition for real estate in desirable areas. It’s tough for young people starting out and once you add daycare to the equation they’re broke.
 

Nobody wants to live in expensive housing for the sake of spending more money. They do it for proximity to jobs that will fund the life they want and because the house is a really good investment.  They do it to build up retirement income.  Those 1200 sqft starter homes are just not out there in populated areas and the jobs to buy them are scarce in areas where they are available. 

[Carrie12345]

17 hours ago, Corraleno said:

A family with a combined income of $80K is going to be paying ~35-40% of their income just to rent a small 2 BR apartment, and they will likely never be able to afford to buy a home here. 

In many places, you’re required to show income of 3x rent, so they (general) may not even be able to get into a small 2br apartment.

[Heartstrings]

2 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

In many places, you’re required to show income of 3x rent, so they (general) may not even be able to get into a small 2br apartment.

Apparently some apartments ae catching on to that and are starting to accept either 2 or 2.5 times the rent in income.   Not all, but there is some movement, at least where I live.  

[SKL]

I wonder what the trend is as far as young adults moving away from their parents (as in, too far for a daily work commute) compared to earlier years.  I tried to google it, but nothing useful came up for this question.  Does anyone know?

I did find that, compared to other Western countries, the % of US young people who don't live independent of their parents is on the low side per attached.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/03/in-the-u-s-and-abroad-more-young-adults-are-living-with-their-parents/

Here's another article I found interesting relating to the relatively low cost of housing in the US.  (Dated 2019, but not ancient.)

https://mises.org/power-market/americans-have-much-more-living-space-europeans

So we apparently have pretty high cultural expectations for access to independent housing.  Should we?

It may be true that we've had some years in the past when this was easier than it is now, but does that mean that what was easy to get at some point in the past is a need, or even really a reasonable want?

Edited March 9 by SKL

[KSera]

13 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

I wonder what the trend is as far as young adults moving away from their parents (as in, too far for a daily work commute) compared to earlier years. 

 

I have seen many articles in the last couple years about US young adults living at home in greater numbers and longer than they used to. Let me look for some links…

More young adults are living at home across the U.S. Here's why. (This one says median rent has increased 18% since 2020.)

A Third of Young Adults Live With Their Parents

Nearly a Third of Gen Z Is Living at Home (and They Plan to Stay)
 

[SKL]

42 minutes ago, KSera said:

I have seen many articles in the last couple years about US young adults living at home in greater numbers and longer than they used to. Let me look for some links…

More young adults are living at home across the U.S. Here's why. (This one says median rent has increased 18% since 2020.)

A Third of Young Adults Live With Their Parents

Nearly a Third of Gen Z Is Living at Home (and They Plan to Stay)
 

Interestingly, the first line of one of these articles says:  "Young adults are experiencing traditional milestones such as getting a job, marrying and having children at a later age than their parents."

People are doing most things later, for better or worse.  So many 19yos still in high school, for example.  Naturally, that is going to have effects down the line.

It is probably also a factor that these folks' parents' houses are probably larger than the average house their parents grew up in.  More square footage and more privacy probably means less impatience about moving out (or kicking the young adults out).

The pandemic definitely had an effect as well.  Not sure how long that will impact these trends.

I don't know how useful it is to compare the cost of 2020 rents to any other year, given how non-market 2020 housing was.

But mostly, I don't think it's a crisis if young people have sensible reasons (such as wanting to save money or pay down debts) to enjoy a comfy, affordable housing arrangement.  For that matter, I don't think it's a crisis if they stay on and help their ageing parents.  (Which is probably also more common nowadays, since the parents of today's young adults are older, on average, than our parents were when we became adults.)

Logically, though, less demand for young adults' separate living spaces should decrease the price of rent.  Another quick google search shows that rents are indeed dropping recently, though more in some areas than others.

Edited March 9 by SKL

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

I don't know how useful it is to compare the cost of 2020 rents to any other year, given how non-market 2020 housing was.

Are you thinking that rent hasn’t actually increased that much? Rent just goes up and up around here and is out of reach for a large number of people trying to get out on their own. The first article gives financial reasons as the primary reason for young adults give for living at home.

I agree it’s actually beneficial to have less stigma surrounding young adults living at home. Especially when so many people do actually have room in their houses for that option. That’s not the case for everyone though, of course. If a family is living in an apartment where the “kids” share bedrooms, for example, I think that can be a harder situation for a young adult. Even a house with shared bedrooms is likely to be a situation a young adult would like to move on from, if they had the financial ability to do so. I like having my kids around, but I can’t blame them for not wanting to share bedrooms in their twenties. 

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, KSera said:

Are you thinking that rent hasn’t actually increased that much? Rent just goes up and up around here and is out of reach for a large number of people trying to get out on their own. The first article gives financial reasons as the primary reason for young adults give for living at home.

I agree it’s actually beneficial to have less stigma surrounding young adults living at home. Especially when so many people do actually have room in their houses for that option. That’s not the case for everyone though, of course. If a family is living in an apartment where the “kids” share bedrooms, for example, I think that can be a harder situation for a young adult. Even a house with shared bedrooms is likely to be a situation a young adult would like to move on from, if they had the financial ability to do so. I like having my kids around, but I can’t blame them for not wanting to share bedrooms in their twenties. 

Apparently rents are starting to decrease, or to increase much more slowly, since early 2023.  Not in every city, obviously, but in general.

[SKL]

7 minutes ago, KSera said:

 Even a house with shared bedrooms is likely to be a situation a young adult would like to move on from, if they had the financial ability to do so. I like having my kids around, but I can’t blame them for not wanting to share bedrooms in their twenties. 

I like my privacy too, but historically / globally, our expectation of private living arrangements even for adults is an anomaly.  My friends from other cultures find it sad when they hear that a person has nobody to share with.

[Carol in Cal.]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I wonder what the trend is as far as young adults moving away from their parents (as in, too far for a daily work commute) compared to earlier years.  I tried to google it, but nothing useful came up for this question.  Does anyone know?

I did find that, compared to other Western countries, the % of US young people who don't live independent of their parents is on the low side per attached.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/03/in-the-u-s-and-abroad-more-young-adults-are-living-with-their-parents/

Here's another article I found interesting relating to the relatively low cost of housing in the US.  (Dated 2019, but not ancient.)

https://mises.org/power-market/americans-have-much-more-living-space-europeans

So we apparently have pretty high cultural expectations for access to independent housing.  Should we?

It may be true that we've had some years in the past when this was easier than it is now, but does that mean that what was easy to get at some point in the past is a need, or even really a reasonable want?

I will say, I was absolutely wild to get out on my own.  And so were all my friends.  (70s, ish).  I think that this was the cultural norm, but also kind of the expectation even in fairy tales, where heros always ‘went out into the world to seek their fortune.’  I knew kids whose parents told them that once they were 18 they were on their own, too, and that was a really tough thing as most of us didn’t have the wherewithal to support ourselves locally without any college education.  

Oddly, both of my parents lived at home well into their 20s.  I don’t know why that knowledge didn’t influence me the way the fairy tales did.  It’s funny.

[KSera]

52 minutes ago, SKL said:

I like my privacy too, but historically / globally, our expectation of private living arrangements even for adults is an anomaly. 

Yes. It’s hard to change something like that so quickly though. As more young adults live at home, I expect it will be normalized and overtime, it won’t be felt as a negative but when kids grow up in a culture that puts forth moving out on your own as being one of the main indicators of “true adulthood,” it can be difficult for them to feel like they are  successful if they are still living with mom and dad. It can be hard, with everyone from grandparents to healthcare providers asking when they are finally going to move out (when they are all of 22 🙄).

 

[frogger]

According to this link,  about 1/3 of homes are owned by the 65+ age group. Unless a miracle drug comes out that makes us live forever those homes will come up for sale. The boomers and millennials (both larger generations) are overlapping right now. Many cities are also opening up zoning and such to expand housing. I know I am certainly fighting for more housing in my city. It is likely that prices will get better but it is likely to be a decade or more before their is relief which is hard for young families but I wouldn't say they will "never" be able to own a home. 

 

https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/homeownership-rate-by-age#:~:text=Age Groups %26 Homeownership 1 The average homeowner,among all age groups at 79.5%. More items

 

 

I agree that American expectations are very high in regards to housing. We also have decided that nuclear, rather than extended family, is the only unit that matters. This simply hasn't been the case historically.

There are also families that share a home with the children and the parents move in and out on a weekly basis. I think this is thoughtful towards the kids (rather than making the kids move back and forth between divorced parents)  but we must recognize the privilage of two adults (that would have to work together to barely survive in a different time and place) being able to own/rent/take up 3 dwellings. I realize only wealthier people can do this and the housing market is very different for the low income folks but if we look at the big picture Americans do have a skewed since of housing need compared to the rest of the world. 

[SKL]

14 minutes ago, KSera said:

Yes. It’s hard to change something like that so quickly though. As more young adults live at home, I expect it will be normalized and overtime, it won’t be felt as a negative but when kids grow up in a culture that puts forth moving out on your own as being one of the main indicators of “true adulthood,” it can be difficult for them to feel like they are  successful if they are still living with mom and dad. It can be hard, with everyone from grandparents to healthcare providers asking when they are finally going to move out (when they are all of 22 🙄).

I agree.  I don't see much of that nagging in my circles, thankfully.  I know it used to be more of a thing, particularly with boys, when I was a young adult.  I do have one friend who said of her young adult son, "he moved out this past year (age 20 or 21), and if he hadn't, we would have kicked him out.  He and my husband were just getting into it too often about house rules etc."

This also makes me wonder whether the changes in family structure are a factor.  I think it's somewhat instinctive for fathers and sons to butt heads at times, but how does that work when the father doesn't live in the same house as the mother and son?

Oh and I do know of one girl who has been told she's going to be kicked out on her 18th birthday (a few months after her high school graduation, if she doesn't fail out).  She's made a series of poor decisions and breaks every rule she can possibly break.  She lives with her grandparents as her mom is an unfit parent.  Anyhoo.  I pray for her.  I guess her situation impacts the statistics, but I consider it an anomaly.

Edited March 9 by SKL

[frogger]

10 minutes ago, KSera said:

Yes. It’s hard to change something like that so quickly though. As more young adults live at home, I expect it will be normalized and overtime, it won’t be felt as a negative but when kids grow up in a culture that puts forth moving out on your own as being one of the main indicators of “true adulthood,” it can be difficult for them to feel like they are  successful if they are still living with mom and dad. It can be hard, with everyone from grandparents to healthcare providers asking when they are finally going to move out (when they are all of 22 🙄).

 

When I talk to my (pull yourselves up by your bootstraps) family I always end up mentioning how nice it is to have someone paying rent and helping fix things up. It comes across as a business deal which in some ways it is. It IS nice to have a strong back around for work. 

Healthcare providers can mind their own business. How unprofessional! 

[Pawz4me]

16 minutes ago, KSera said:

Yes. It’s hard to change something like that so quickly though. As more young adults live at home, I expect it will be normalized and overtime, it won’t be felt as a negative but when kids grow up in a culture that puts forth moving out on your own as being one of the main indicators of “true adulthood,” it can be difficult for them to feel like they are  successful if they are still living with mom and dad. It can be hard, with everyone from grandparents to healthcare providers asking when they are finally going to move out (when they are all of 22 🙄).

 

Adult (over 18) children continuing to live at home for as long as they want has always been the norm in my family and among my friends' families. I lived with my parents until I was almost 23. My friends moved out of their parents' homes somewhere in that same general age range. DH and his sister ping ponged in and out of their parents' house throughout their early/mid 20's. I don't recall any stigma at all, although it's possible there was and I was just clueless. I really didn't pay any attention to what others thought. Likewise, DS25 still lives with us and no one questions it. We have nieces and nephews older than him who are still living with their parents. Some are doing it because of housing costs but most are doing it just because it makes sense and allows them to sock away money rather than throwing it away on rent.

[Clarita]

My parents were pretty upset when I looked into moving out when I got my first job at 22. There was a our house isn't good enough for you. My decision to stay and live with them until I was married is a point of pride for them. 

I had one coworker look down on me for it. Then again she was jealous of the presents I would get my mom. 

[SKL]

10 minutes ago, Clarita said:

My parents were pretty upset when I looked into moving out when I got my first job at 22. There was a our house isn't good enough for you. My decision to stay and live with them until I was married is a point of pride for them. 

I had one coworker look down on me for it. Then again she was jealous of the presents I would get my mom. 

I have friends who lived with their folks into their 30s, and their folks weren't accepting of the idea of a female moving out without being married.

My mom has said that she got married at 17 in order to get out of her mom's house, so I guess that may have affected her views on her daughters.  😛  My dad always said he would never kick a daughter out.  There's definitely a gender bias in some cultures.