Boomers won’t part with their homes, and that’s a problem for young families

3 years ago by MicroWave to c/news

Buying a family-sized home with three or more bedrooms used to be manageable for young people with children. But with home prices climbing faster than wages, mortgage rates still close to 23-year highs and a shortage of homes nationwide, many Millennials with kids can’t afford it. And Gen Z adults with kids? Even harder.

Meanwhile, Baby Boomers are staying in their larger homes for longer, preferring to age in place and stay active in a neighborhood that’s familiar to them. And even if they sold, where would they go? There is a shortage of smaller homes in those neighborhoods.

As a result, empty-nest Baby Boomers own 28% of large homes — and Milliennials with kids own just 14%, according to a Redfin analysis released Tuesday. Gen Z families own just 0.3% of homes with three bedrooms or more.

blazera 187 points 3 years ago

They trying to distract us. I aint looking at the single home owning boomers, its landlords and corporate real estate companies hoarding homes.

path: 0 6762569, hotness: undefined, score: 187, children: 4

Volume 20 points 3 years ago

Absolutely, it isn't those boomer parents living in a house for 40 years that are driving up the costs. It's corporations and landlords buying houses as investments so that they can rent them out while the market skyrockets.

path: 0 6762569 6775290, hotness: undefined, score: 20, children: 0

LSNLDN 11 points 3 years ago

Yeah this needs more of an upvote, take a THIS

path: 0 6762569 6766625, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 0

Empricorn 3 points 3 years ago

Mostly, you're right, IMO. But these same people will vote against affordable housing being built near them... "Not in my backyard!"

path: 0 6762569 6781781, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

PlainSimpleGarak 0 points 3 years ago

Right? Modern medicine is keeping people alive longer, and I'm not going to judge someone for wanting to keep the home they've probably lived in for many years.

I don't rent, but from what I read it's out of control, and corporations buying up homes, putting in the bare minimum to fix up (read: lazy/cheap contractors) and asking way more than it's worth. Now, of course you don't have to pay it, but if everyone is asking overprice, what are people suppose to do?

path: 0 6762569 6813287, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

Coreidan 158 points 3 years ago

This post is a load of horse shit.

The reason housing prices are out of control is because investment firms are gobbling them up with cash, yet you’re blaming it on boomers staying in their homes.

Boomers are staying in their homes BECAUSE the housing market is out of control. Stop blaming older people and start blaming Wall Street.

path: 0 6776158, hotness: undefined, score: 158, children: 4

thisorthatorwhatever 27 points 3 years ago

Exactly. Where will they move to? Most older people want to stay in the neighborhood that they grew up in. It's not like an 80 year old will be selling their house in suburban Long Island to find a cheap room in rural Alaska.

path: 0 6776158 6776966, hotness: undefined, score: 27, children: 2

Smoogs 9 points 3 years ago

And it’s not like new houses haven’t been built since grandpa bought his house.

And it’s not like there isn’t people benefitting now on a housing shortage caused by Airbnb buying up all that new housing.

Blaming boomers for corrupt Airbnb for this is a desperate reach.

path: 0 6776158 6776966 6778298, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0

EatATaco 1 point 3 years ago

This point is literally in the article, almost word for word, and it's being upvoted as a defense of them against this article that's allegedly trying to blame them.

Fucking hell, it never ceases to amaze me that people will be so up in arms against something they didn't even bother to read.

path: 0 6776158 6776966 6778453, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

Smoogs 4 points 3 years ago

Also blame shit like Silicon Valley for coming up with these new things like Airbnb and not putting it through a proper checkpoint on how it impacts the world. Like surely that could have had some foresight on the housing shortage it was going to cost the moment people got dollar signs in their eyes.

path: 0 6776158 6778237, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

saintshenanigans 153 points 3 years ago

Idgaf about the boomers who want to grow old in the homes they bought. Thats their right as a homeowner. I care about the airbnbs, unskilled flippers, and the corps trying to turn America into a "renters market"

path: 0 6779691, hotness: undefined, score: 153, children: 8

ohlaph 38 points 3 years ago

Exactly. My parents are boomers and own one house. But my sister and her son live with them, so they are utilizing their space.

It's the corporations that own several rentals, complexes, etc that drive rent and house prices up. Can't compete with their practices .

path: 0 6779691 6781729, hotness: undefined, score: 38, children: 1

creamed_eels 10 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6779691 6781729 6781908, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 0

captainWhatsHisName 31 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6779691 6781366, hotness: undefined, score: 31, children: 1

negativeyoda 2 points 3 years ago

GenX here. I'm shocked someone remembered us. We're not even mentioned in the synopsis

path: 0 6779691 6781366 6806806, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

dipshit 16 points 3 years ago

This. it’s ok to own a home. It’s ok to rent a home. people need places to live.

What’s not ok is being a slumlord.

path: 0 6779691 6780620, hotness: undefined, score: 16, children: 0

MaoZedongers 15 points 3 years ago

yeah kinda feels like the corporations trying to push a bogeyman to distract us.

path: 0 6779691 6791128, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 1

shasta 6 points 3 years ago

No, just a writer with nothing to write about. This article is seriously summed up as "omg people are choosing to live in the homes they bought, wtf??!"

path: 0 6779691 6791128 6795453, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0

mojofrododojo 4 points 3 years ago

These fuckers too - price hiking people out of rentals is a policy. The encourage evictions instead of negotiation. it's fucked.

https://www.businessinsider.com/...

path: 0 6779691 6787160, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

jordanlund 89 points 3 years ago

As usual, no mention of Gen X.

path: 0 6760358, hotness: undefined, score: 89, children: 20

originalucifer 41 points 3 years ago

the ninja generation

listen close, theyre around here somewhere..

path: 0 6760358 6760537, hotness: undefined, score: 41, children: 0

Zorque 30 points 3 years ago

You know, I hate the joke, but it seems to have a special place in their heart...

How do you know someone is Gen X? Well, you don't really care, but they'll tell you anyways.

path: 0 6760358 6761193, hotness: undefined, score: 30, children: 4

theneverfox 4 points 3 years ago

My dad was trying to tell me he was a millennial the other day. I tell him "no, you're not", he says he's definitely too young to be a boomer and lists off the boomer birth range.

I just stared at him for a second, before reminding him Gen X exists and he's part of it

Even Gen X forgets there's a Gen X

path: 0 6760358 6761193 6782697, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

twistypencil -20 points 3 years ago

They are all vegan?

path: 0 6760358 6761193 6761334, hotness: undefined, score: -20, children: 2

Zorque 14 points 3 years ago

Found the person who enjoys unoriginal jokes.

path: 0 6760358 6761193 6761334 6761431, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 1

twistypencil 0 points 3 years ago

Says that very person

path: 0 6760358 6761193 6761334 6761431 6776043, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

cyborganism 7 points 3 years ago

Why? They got their house when they were still affordable and there wasn't a shortage. During their time, they could negotiate prices down. They're not the ones being affected by the boomers.

path: 0 6760358 6760839, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 6

BeautifulMind 14 points 3 years ago

They’re not the ones being affected by the boomers.

My dude, they've been riding us our whole lives

path: 0 6760358 6760839 6764146, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 0

cosmic_slate 4 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6760358 6760839 6761858, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 3

iheartneopets 2 points 3 years ago

I don't think they're blaming them, just explaining why they aren't mentioned in this scenario

path: 0 6760358 6760839 6761858 6762361, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 2

cosmic_slate 3 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6760358 6760839 6761858 6762361 6762561, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1

Reverendender 3 points 3 years ago

No I’m…doesn’t!

Seriously, plenty of us missed the window

path: 0 6760358 6760839 6764957, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

cybersandwich 4 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6760358 6774620, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1

skeezix 1 point 3 years ago

Bok bok. Please continue to ignore us.

path: 0 6760358 6774620 6783072, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

Jimmycrackcrack 2 points 3 years ago

They were mentioned at least once

path: 0 6760358 6761748, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1

bobs_monkey 3 points 3 years ago

Gen Xers were 42 to 57

And then.. crickets.

path: 0 6760358 6761748 6761832, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

samus12345 2 points 3 years ago

Whatever.

path: 0 6760358 6810325, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1

jordanlund 1 point 3 years ago

meh

path: 0 6760358 6810325 6811765, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

Psiczar 2 points 3 years ago

We are definitely the forgotten generation!

path: 0 6760358 6800000, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

Brkdncr 82 points 3 years ago

Sadly, many can’t move. Retirement homes/communities are sometimes more expensive. Smaller homes cost more or have HOA fees they can’t make work. Most all options have taxes they also can’t make work.

I wish it were as easy as telling them to move but it’s not.

path: 0 6760779, hotness: undefined, score: 82, children: 18

CaptainPedantic 20 points 3 years ago

A few years ago my grandparents were in a memory care facility as their health declined. It cost them $18,000 a month to stay there. Adjusting for inflation that's like $22,000 a month.

path: 0 6760779 6763618, hotness: undefined, score: 20, children: 2

FuglyDuck 3 points 3 years ago

memory care facility

I'm assuming a large part of that was the full time nursing care to keep Gran's from wandering off into the street looking for Pinkie, their childhood cat in the middle of rush hour (as well as dealing with... you know... making sure they get meds and, eating right, and wiping their ass after, they, uh, ate right.)

path: 0 6760779 6763618 6764980, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1

CaptainPedantic 5 points 3 years ago

Not really, surprisingly. They mostly only needed basic assisted living stuff (meals were provided). Both needed help with their medications, but my grandpa was mostly independent, only requiring help putting on his shoes and taking showers. My grandma was a psycho wannabe escape artist though. But she didn't really need someone to watch her all the time. The building was intentionally designed confusingly to prevent escapes.

path: 0 6760779 6763618 6764980 6767501, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0

CoreOffset 14 points 3 years ago

Smaller homes cost more or have HOA fees they can’t make work. Most all options have taxes they also can’t make work.

It's pretty insane that America has virtually no supply of inexpensive small homes. It's all about the 2500+ sq-ft behemoths that cost $400,000+.

Even though it's a "worse" deal per sqft I think the market for sub $200,000 homes in the 500-750 sq-ft range would be absolutely booming if it existed.

path: 0 6760779 6762979, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 13

FuglyDuck 11 points 3 years ago

I know a real estate developer type. (kinda a moron, actually, but he's got a lot of experience in building expensive places to live.)

A comment he made to me once was "Nobody builds low-income housing. a mid-rise luxury condo will only cost a bit more to build than low income apartments, but you make a shitload more"

yeah, he was also kind of an asshole.

path: 0 6760779 6762979 6765025, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 10

CoreOffset 8 points 3 years ago

A comment he made to me once was “Nobody builds low-income housing. a mid-rise luxury condo will only cost a bit more to build than low income apartments, but you make a shitload more”

Yeah, I completely believe it.

Space-efficient middle housing for the poor and lower middle-class is not something we can rely on private companies to do in America. It's something that is going to have to take government intervention.

The apartment complex I was in took up as much land as around 5-7 average sized new construction homes yet it housed 42 46(I actually remember two of the buildings having 8 apartments each) apartments. It was also in a part of the country where a car was basically required. There was space for every apartment to have at least 1 car and have space to spare. Realistically probably about 1.5 cars per apartment could fit parked in the complex.

path: 0 6760779 6762979 6765025 6766471, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 4

vividspecter 1 point 3 years ago

There was space for every apartment to have at least 1 car and have space to spare. Realistically probably about 1.5 cars per apartment could fit parked in the complex.

Parking minimums are utter madness, and a big part of the issue in the US. Although I understand that in some states/cities where this isn't required, developers still overbuild the parking just out of the assumption that buyers/renters will prefer it.

path: 0 6760779 6762979 6765025 6766471 6772381, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 3

sin_free_for_00_days 3 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6760779 6762979 6765025 6765278, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

GBU_28 1 point 3 years ago

He may have been an asshole but that statement isn't what made him one. He's just working with reality.

Making luxury stuff makes more money for him and his whole team. Simple stuff.

If we as society want change, we need to work with the vehicle we have to do so: government.

Set quotas. Offer subsidies to builders. Specify zoning to require x% of undeveloped land earmarked for building to be higher density or lower cost. (Or both.)

path: 0 6760779 6762979 6765025 6776627, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1

FuglyDuck 0 points 3 years ago

Making luxury stuff makes more money for him and his whole team. Simple stuff.

The context of that conversation was in a looming housing crisis. This was before the Hiawatha encampment made it much more visible.

In any case I was and am active in the city level politics and I was looking for a rough estimate to price out literally just building new apartments for everyone that needed a home.

Basically he was saying “but nobody does that,” and he’s right. And I wouldn’t expect him to. But, just for the record, from what I found at the time chatting up a few developers…

… it would have cost less than the cities-then budget for dealing with the housing crisis. But people want to be assholes for some reason.

path: 0 6760779 6762979 6765025 6776627 6784275, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

r00ty 1 point 3 years ago

Here in the UK it's generally the same, but also in a way worse.

Developers are "required" to build a percentage of homes that are "affordable". I put both of these in quotes because, yeah. They dodge it over and over and somehow are still granted permission for their next project.

path: 0 6760779 6762979 6765025 6769232, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1

FuglyDuck 1 point 3 years ago

A lot of the big developments in minneapolis are supposed to have a certain percentage of the spaces be "affordable", but, if you happen to be one of the largest real estate developers and in the world... and if you happen to own several lobbyists... waivers exist.

path: 0 6760779 6762979 6765025 6769232 6770770, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

vividspecter 2 points 3 years ago

Missing middle housing would be an even better solution (duplexes, quadraplexes, row houses, and small apartment buildings). Single family houses are an incredibly inefficient use of space and naturally cause greater sprawl, which means more cars and more roads (and consequently more emissions).

path: 0 6760779 6762979 6764176, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1

CoreOffset 1 point 3 years ago

Single family houses are an incredibly inefficient use of space and naturally cause greater sprawl, which means more cars and more roads (and consequently more emissions).

Trust me, I completely agree. I just have very low expectations of the American market and the American consumer. I figured that lots half as wide and half as deep could fit 4 times the number of "tiny" homes in the same area and it might entice many people who want a single family home to something more land efficient rather than a 2500sq-ft place.

I used to live in an apartment complex that had a number of buildings and each building had 6 apartments. I really liked it. One of the best places I ever lived, but unfortunately the management company decided that they need to constantly raise the rent. They ended up forcing a lot of people out.

path: 0 6760779 6762979 6764176 6764618, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

Jimmycrackcrack 11 points 3 years ago

Also, even if it were that easy, it's kind of hard to expect someone to leave their home for the greater good. Looking at it from the perspective of society at large it makes logical sense and frames the empty nester as selfish, but when it comes down to the individuals it's kind of hard to blame them, it's their home and they love it and they chose it, why should they choose something else?

In general, large scale, difficult, costly changes done for social good are hard to get off the ground when they rely on large numbers of people choosing to make them and solely for the social good without any other natural motivations.

path: 0 6760779 6761943, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 0

candyman337 71 points 3 years ago

Really tired of big news companies blaming individuals for industries ruined by the greedy elite, if I can't afford to buy a house, then they can't afford to move houses. My parents wouldn't have a shot in the dark affording a new house.

path: 0 6766865, hotness: undefined, score: 71, children: 1

werefreeatlast 4 points 3 years ago

Sell your 1 million dollar house that you own and pay $6000 on taxes for just to land back on the market and realize that you can afford a small condo for that and a jumbo loan 😜.

path: 0 6766865 6772351, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

Localhorst86 67 points 3 years ago

Boomers shouldn't have to part with their homes. They, too, need a place to live.

The issue is not Boomers owning the house they live in and refusing to leave it (even if it might be larger than they require) The issue is in particularly large corporations owning thousands of properties and taking them away from the housing market.

path: 0 6766818, hotness: undefined, score: 67, children: 1

INHALE_VEGETABLES 1 point 3 years ago

We should tear them from their homes and send them back where they came from.

path: 0 6766818 6799900, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

Mr_Blott 63 points 3 years ago

This is a fucking bullshit article. Between Airbnb and filthy scum investment companies buying up homes to rent, actual owners are nowhere near the biggest problem

Stop upvoting shit like this. CNN = Clearly Not News

path: 0 6778634, hotness: undefined, score: 63, children: 6

cygnosis 21 points 3 years ago

In support of your argument.

Report: 44% of all Single-Family Home Purchases were from Private Investors in 2023

edit: see corrections below

path: 0 6778634 6780093, hotness: undefined, score: 21, children: 4

wowbagger_ 7 points 3 years ago

If you click through to the Business Insider article you can see that it's a misquote. Private investors accounted for 44% of the flips in 2023, not 44% of all single family home purchases total. That's still a problem, but it's a huuuuuge difference. Flips are a small minority of home sales.

path: 0 6778634 6780093 6785185, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 1

cygnosis 2 points 3 years ago

Thanks for the correction. I remembered seeing that number but didn't analyze it in any depth. A more detailed analysis of the market, by Freddie Mac, concluded that there were four main drivers for the recent surge in prices, and investors weren't on the list.

record low mortgage rates in 2020 and 2021, and the race to beat future rate increases;
limited supply from underbuilding and below average distressed sales;
an increase in first-time homebuyers due to favorable age demographics; and
increased migration from high-cost cities to areas that already had a housing shortage.

Institutional investors apparently even reduced their purchases in 23 - some of them were even net sellers - because of prices and interest rates. That doesn't mean they aren't still villians in this scenario. I don't think big investors should own single family homes at all. But still they aren't as big a force as my previous comment indicated.

path: 0 6778634 6780093 6785185 6793224, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

Mr_Blott 4 points 3 years ago

Fucking hell that's shocking

path: 0 6778634 6780093 6780732, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1

WelcomeBear 2 points 3 years ago

It’s not even close to true. Here’s an article about it

path: 0 6778634 6780093 6780732 6789305, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

grilledcheesecowboy 13 points 3 years ago

Not only are corporations buying up houses to rent, they're actively preventing new houses for purchase from being built through "build to rent" schemes. They use the already scarce construction resources and divert them to building housing with the sole intention of renting them out.

So they're keeping the supply houses available to own down, and then preventing new supply from being created. It's a giant fuck you from corporations and shitty local government for letting it happen.

path: 0 6778634 6781045, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 0

JeeBaiChow 61 points 3 years ago

Article makes it sound like an old people problem. It isn't. It's a systemic one. People can't afford houses.

path: 0 6772706, hotness: undefined, score: 61, children: 11

cybersandwich 33 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6772706 6773966, hotness: undefined, score: 33, children: 5

FMT99 26 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6772706 6773966 6774051, hotness: undefined, score: 26, children: 4

Natanael 6 points 3 years ago

The actual solution is to build more and reject the idea that homes should be a monetary investment (because that requires limited supply, which requires that somebody who needs a home in an area can't get it in order to make demand drive the price up)

path: 0 6772706 6773966 6774051 6775224, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 3

Coreidan 2 points 3 years ago

It really isn’t the solution.

I would totally agree with you if it weren’t for the fact that there is an abysmal amount of vacant homes.

Investment companies buy up entire neighborhoods leaving them empty allowing them to jack prices up in the area for rentals.

This has nothing to do with there being not enough homes. The issue is investment companies turning housing into a monopoly.

Building more won’t do shit because investment firms will gobble those up too. New homes are mad expensive too so the only people affording them are rich people or investment firms.

Remove Wall Street from housing and the problem is solved.

path: 0 6772706 6773966 6774051 6775224 6776339, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 2

Black616Angel 11 points 3 years ago

You don't understand. You must be angry at old people, not rich people or companies.

path: 0 6772706 6773901, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 2

capital 4 points 3 years ago

Well, try to build high density housing near them and see what happens.

path: 0 6772706 6773901 6774866, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1

Black616Angel 1 point 3 years ago

"Rich people hate this one simple trick"

path: 0 6772706 6773901 6774866 6775654, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

verdantbanana 4 points 3 years ago

my older in-laws are hoarding all the wealth after grandmother passed and they finagled their way into the inheritance they were not in and inherited the vehicles as well

now we have ask them for anything if we get in a bad way and my side of the family did something similar

older people do be hoarding

path: 0 6772706 6774670, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

Kbobabob 3 points 3 years ago

with home prices climbing faster than wages, mortgage rates still close to 23-year highs and a shortage of homes nationwide, many Millennials with kids can’t afford it. There is a shortage of smaller homes in those neighborhoods.

The article mentions both cost and availability as factors.

path: 0 6772706 6773501, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

karashta 57 points 3 years ago

"Shortage of homes" created by a parasitic class of people and corporations who gobble up all the available homes

path: 0 6760392, hotness: undefined, score: 57, children: 17

cosmic_slate 28 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6760392 6760489, hotness: undefined, score: 28, children: 16

Zorque 19 points 3 years ago

Baby boomers aren't, but capitalists are.

They're the ones who gobble up all available real estate to manipulate everyone else with for their own benefit.

I assume that was Karashta's intent, not Baby boomers as you deflected to.

path: 0 6760392 6760489 6761176, hotness: undefined, score: 19, children: 0

cyborganism 2 points 3 years ago

The plan was that they sell their home and downsize into an easier to maintain condo.

path: 0 6760392 6760489 6760872, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 6

cosmic_slate 12 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6760392 6760489 6760872 6760910, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 5

cyborganism 3 points 3 years ago

It existed 15 years ago, when millennials were starting to move out of their parents' home.

path: 0 6760392 6760489 6760872 6760910 6760955, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 4

halcyoncmdr -1 points 3 years ago

They can go rent the places everyone else is currently forced to because of their generational bullshit.

path: 0 6760392 6760489 6760682, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 3

520 7 points 3 years ago

It ain't the boomers doing that. It's the corporations.

path: 0 6760392 6760489 6760682 6762568, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 2

halcyoncmdr -2 points 3 years ago

And who runs those corporations?

path: 0 6760392 6760489 6760682 6762568 6762946, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 1

betterdeadthanreddit -2 points 3 years ago

Bunk beds in assisted living, pack them in tight so they briefly get to experience a taste of the consequences of their generation's gluttony before shuffling off this mortal coil. The rich won't be affected, of course, so significant opposition isn't likely. Through their votes and actions, they made their bed so now they get to climb up and lie in it.

path: 0 6760392 6760489 6767936, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 3

FMT99 3 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6760392 6760489 6767936 6774337, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

cosmic_slate -1 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6760392 6760489 6767936 6776726, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 1

betterdeadthanreddit 1 point 3 years ago

Thanks doc.

path: 0 6760392 6760489 6767936 6776726 6781830, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

Maggoty 49 points 3 years ago

Well gee it's almost like after decades of being told they should treat houses as investments to be collected instead of sold, they listened.

The problem isn't boomers. It's people buying more than they need during a crisis.

Don't let them make you forget that 44 percent of homes were bought by corporations in 2023. In cash, above asking, no inspection.

path: 0 6786578, hotness: undefined, score: 49, children: 6

WelcomeBear 8 points 3 years ago

I agree with most of what you said but that 44% number is wildly wrong. Article about it
Also, anecdotally, I’ve gone through a couple of houses in hot markets the last 5 years (had to move for work) as both buyer and seller. The vast majority of people looking weren’t corporate or institutions. Most were couples looking for a place to live. Cash buyers above asking are a real thing though and they suuuuuuuck for the poors like myself.

path: 0 6786578 6789426, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 5

Maggoty 4 points 3 years ago

Your right, I shouldn't take my news from Medium headlines. So here's the actual study results from Business Insider.

However the Medium article wasn't wrong. When you have reporting from NYT to CNBC agreeing, and a glorified industry blog splitting hairs as a defense then it's pretty clear what the situation is.

path: 0 6786578 6789426 6802204, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 4

WelcomeBear 2 points 3 years ago

“ When combining closings between both larger, private equity and smaller, independent operations, investors accounted for 44% of the purchases of flips during the third quarter”

That figure is talking about only flipped (i.e. remodeled) houses bought in a specific quarter, October 2022. Most people (myself included) can’t afford freshly remodeled homes and brand new cars.
That figure also lumps small landlords together with big investors which really isn’t the same thing in my opinion but some people around here think that all landlords are evil so that’s somewhat subjective I guess.

Institutional investors “purchased 25% of the homes flipped” “as soaring mortgage rates push traditional buyers to the sidelines,”

That still sucks but it’s not 44% of all homes being bought by big corporations throughout 2023.

Here’s a recent Business Insider article that goes in depth on who’s been buying houses over time

path: 0 6786578 6789426 6802204 6803638, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 3

Maggoty 1 point 3 years ago

Idgaf if they own 10 houses or 10,000. They're hoarding houses and people are being hurt by it. It needs to stop.

path: 0 6786578 6789426 6802204 6803638 6809685, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2

sharkfucker420 48 points 3 years ago

Truts me a single individual owning a home is not a problem and it isn't what is causing housing insecurity.

It's corporations that own thousands even millions of homes

path: 0 6765587, hotness: undefined, score: 48, children: 1

not_again 2 points 3 years ago

Similar in principle to carbon emissions: yeah, people individually have a carbon footprint, but corporations and industrial activities dwarf that.

path: 0 6765587 6775900, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

Buddahriffic 45 points 3 years ago

I love this community, seeing through the generational conflict bullshit.

Makes me wonder if the corporate propaganda networks are going to be in trouble because this seems to be one actual generational trend: younger generations don't seem to trust the media like older ones did.

I've seen CNN as basically Fox News but with a different target audience for over a decade now. They can't say as much stupid shit because that audience isn't as dumb as Fox's, but it's pushing the same divide and conquer shit.

path: 0 6781488, hotness: undefined, score: 45, children: 2

madcaesar 4 points 3 years ago

CNN got bought by some other Republican asshole, I forget the name. They are basically FOX News now without actually using the N word.

path: 0 6781488 6788479, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

btaf45 2 points 3 years ago

I like Scripps News

path: 0 6781488 6812860, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

notannpc 39 points 3 years ago

I’m shocked! Is this yet another article that tries to blame the average American for the housing market problems instead of residential real estate “investors” buying up all the properties to rent or use as airbnbs?

Or what about the foreign investors who are buying up land and homes with what seems to be zero oversight?

But obviously it’s the boomers who just want to live in the house they bought.

path: 0 6809086, hotness: undefined, score: 39, children: 6

morrowind 3 points 3 years ago

Also, y'know just the overall lack of houses. It's not all greedy investors

path: 0 6809086 6810550, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 4

StoneGender 3 points 3 years ago

https://usafacts.org/... 10% of homes in 2022 in the US were empty

path: 0 6809086 6810550 6810867, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 3

morrowind 2 points 3 years ago

That stat by itself means nothing because

Second homes/vacation homes of wealthy individuals
Natural vacancy in between buyers/renters/airbnb/refurbishment etc.
There's no point to a vacant house in the middle of bumfuck nowhere. Populations are constantly moving.

path: 0 6809086 6810550 6810867 6811950, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 2

StoneGender 2 points 3 years ago

It disproves the idea that there aren't enough homes. When i was homeless person I didnt care where the house was. Second homes of the wealthy are vacant. landlords are part of the problem and are scum.

path: 0 6809086 6810550 6810867 6811950 6812110, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

btaf45 2 points 3 years ago

Second homes/vacation homes of wealthy individuals

The GOP's constant gigantic tax cuts for the rich are a huge force inflating costs of houses for everyone.

path: 0 6809086 6810550 6810867 6811950 6812794, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

MaoZedongers 1 point 3 years ago

It's the scapegoat to try and avoid the legislation that needs to happen to put a stop to this bullshit.

path: 0 6809086 6815116, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

alekwithak 34 points 3 years ago

I'm all for blaming boomers, but what about the corporations and foreign entities buying up single family homes?

path: 0 6761467, hotness: undefined, score: 34, children: 2

Lexam 16 points 3 years ago

You can't blame corporations. Lobbyists passed a law against that.

path: 0 6761467 6763038, hotness: undefined, score: 16, children: 0

FuglyDuck 2 points 3 years ago

but what about the corporations and foreign entities buying up single family homes?

Fuck them too. Well. lets fuck them first, and then see if that helps. we can hold boomers in the wings.

Actually, who do you think sits on the boards of those hedge funds (blackrock comes to mind,)? it ain't gen z. or millenials. So, yeah. we can still blame boomers.... :)

path: 0 6761467 6765171, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

AbsoluteChicagoDog 34 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6777156, hotness: undefined, score: 34, children: 3

skeezix 4 points 3 years ago

Funny how corporate strategy of encouraging us to squabble with each other is the same as the predominant political strategy.

path: 0 6777156 6782823, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1

AbsoluteChicagoDog 1 point 3 years ago

path: 0 6777156 6782823 6785683, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

Emerald 1 point 3 years ago

Why fuck boomers? Hating a whole generation seems a little extreme

path: 0 6777156 6802808, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

Belgdore 30 points 3 years ago

Boomers should have housing. And we shouldn’t ignore the idiosyncratic attachments that people develop to their homes. Saying “the boomers need to move so I can have a home” is no different than saying “that people group needs to move so my people group has living space.”

We can all have homes. The problem is that the corporations are incentivized to buy residential property and rent it to us. Fuck them.

path: 0 6804568, hotness: undefined, score: 30, children: 5

Pyr_Pressure 2 points 3 years ago

Around me there are strata neighborhoods (HOA) with 3 bedroom houses with restrictions saying you have to be 55+ years of age to live there. There's no reason other than it makes the housing cheap to purchase for older folks. Younger folk get screwed yet again. There's no reason a 3+ bedroom house should be reserved for older people.

I could understand it if there were handicap accessible bathrooms and whatnot but they are just regular homes. Also many luxury condos with the same restrictions.

path: 0 6804568 6810632, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

TheHotze 1 point 3 years ago

And many cities make it illegal to build smaller housing units in the areas that older people who own the larger houses live.

path: 0 6804568 6812023, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

nbafantest -1 points 3 years ago

There is no limit to the amount of housing we can build. Investment in housing is good for everyone.

path: 0 6804568 6804928, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 2

spacesatan 4 points 3 years ago

Investing in new construction and 'investing' in hoarding existing real estate are not the same thing.

path: 0 6804568 6804928 6808319, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1

nbafantest -1 points 3 years ago

Almost no one builds their own house.

path: 0 6804568 6804928 6808319 6808452, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0

viking 29 points 3 years ago

“Old people to blame for not selling their houses or dying sooner!"

Seriously, WTF? It's my house. The entitlement of some people...

path: 0 6811298, hotness: undefined, score: 29, children: 1

PotatoesFall 0 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6811298 6812397, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

AlijahTheMediocre 29 points 3 years ago

How bout, now hear me out, we build more and better housing. I'm not throwing Grandma and Grandpa to the curb I'm overthrowing Capitalism first

path: 0 6775359, hotness: undefined, score: 29, children: 9

GBU_28 10 points 3 years ago

How ya doing that

path: 0 6775359 6776514, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 2

AlijahTheMediocre 3 points 3 years ago

weeps for he does not know and is hopeless

path: 0 6775359 6776514 6777197, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

TheFonz 1 point 3 years ago

One of the big challenges to overcome is update zoning laws. The US relies heavily on outdated Euclidian zoning and it's the root cause of most of the construction trends. We need middle housing but everyone is building five over one multi-family luxury housing.

path: 0 6775359 6776514 6804209, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

MaxHardwood 3 points 3 years ago

Building more wont do anything for people that actually want to buy a home. Building more just increases the rental supply for landlords and corporations. There are enough homes built. Nobody is homeless waiting for a house to be built. The current supply needs to be redistributed.

path: 0 6775359 6775735, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 3

wahming 10 points 3 years ago

There are enough homes built

Every study I've seen says otherwise, you might want to back up your opinion.

https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/...

path: 0 6775359 6775735 6776763, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 1

TheFonz 2 points 3 years ago

Not just that, but because of outdated Euclidian zoning we are building the wrong stuff. It's lucrative for developers to only build 5 over 1 luxury multifamily.

path: 0 6775359 6775735 6776763 6804257, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

nbafantest 1 point 3 years ago

The United States is short some 5 million houses.

There are plenty of people who want to buy a house but it's too expensive and there's not enough houses for sale.

Housing follows supply and demand. A high price is a market signal to build more

path: 0 6775359 6775735 6805094, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

pacology 3 points 3 years ago

At least where I live, new housing costs exceed the value of the built building, so new costruction isn’t viable.

path: 0 6775359 6775468, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1

ZombiFrancis 3 points 3 years ago

There is a reason housing needs have historically been met by public investment without expectation of market investment.

path: 0 6775359 6775468 6777715, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

Zuberi 27 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6774559, hotness: undefined, score: 27, children: 1

SwingingKoala -1 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6774559 6774663, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0

Supermariofan67 26 points 3 years ago

Media doing everything they can to keep people fighting each other rather than the owner class...

path: 0 6761057, hotness: undefined, score: 26, children: 3

Plavatos 4 points 3 years ago

Damn, reading these comments it's pretty much working.

path: 0 6761057 6764550, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 2

FMT99 2 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6761057 6764550 6774389, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1

skeezix 1 point 3 years ago

Do you have a selfish nana who’s hoarding a house?

path: 0 6761057 6764550 6774389 6783128, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

Smoogs 25 points 3 years ago

Ok so we’re trying to blame boomers now for Airbnb now? Cuz there’s more than enough NEW housing that was turned into Airbnb by gobbling firms.

Brian Joseph Chesky (born August 29, 1981) is an American businessman and industrial designer and the co-founder and CEO of Airbnb. Chesky is the 249th richest person in the world according to Forbes, with a net worth of $8.6 billion, mostly due to his ownership of 76 million shares of Airbnb.

Where did Brian Chesky start Airbnb?

San Francisco Airbnb. In October 2007, the Industrial Designers Society of America was hosting a conference in San Francisco and all hotel rooms were booked. The pair could not afford rent for the month and decided to rent their apartment for money.

You can safely leave the boomers out of that conversation for how the unchecked system was actually broken by a millennial.

path: 0 6778200, hotness: undefined, score: 25, children: 2

Bonskreeskreeskree 1 point 3 years ago

Airbnb impact pales in comparison to SFR and B2R. And guess what generation is driving those industries.

path: 0 6778200 6804432, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1

Smoogs 0 points 3 years ago

Go away troll.

path: 0 6778200 6804432 6805640, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

hperrin 24 points 3 years ago

That’s not the problem.

path: 0 6767959, hotness: undefined, score: 24, children: 0

QuarterSwede 20 points 3 years ago

Nice to gloss over the fact that home mortgage rates were double what they are now when they were buying them. My boomer parents’ rate was 12% for the majority of their 30-year mortgage (and that was considered great!). We’re trying to get them to move out of their 6 bedroom home I grew up in but they have deep roots where they are and aren’t interested in moving anytime soon.

path: 0 6760434, hotness: undefined, score: 20, children: 13

hungrycat 20 points 3 years ago

I’m not a math whiz, but just using an online loan interest calculator, comparing the total cost of the median loan to median salaries for 1990 vs today, that 12% rate still doesn’t make up for the difference in home prices and the stagnating wages young people face today. Seven percent mortgage rate today (which is being generous) compared to 12% yesteryear, at homes that were one quarter of today’s price, with salaries that have grown by barely a third… it just doesn’t add up. I’m not saying your parents are wrong, I’m saying there is something wrong.

path: 0 6760434 6761086, hotness: undefined, score: 20, children: 9

JoeCoT 9 points 3 years ago

That was the entire point of mortgages. You're paying interest, and could end up paying well over the original house value, but over a long enough time period, via inflation and property values increasing, you're still making out ahead of renting. Depending on the mortgage interest rate, you could be better off not paying it off early.

For example, I refinanced my house at 2.6%. Afterwards I started paying extra principal payments. My mother the accountant told me to stop. The interest rate is lower than inflation, I'm better off using the money for other things or putting it into higher yield savings accounts instead of paying it off earlier than schedule.

path: 0 6760434 6761086 6761360, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 1

hungrycat 5 points 3 years ago

That’s a fair point, if you’re among those who don’t wait the length of time for an entire generation to come of age and two thirds of your loan period to pass before you get to see lower interest rates. Between the late 70s and early 80s there was a steep rise in mortgage rates, but this quickly dropped off and returned to early 1970s rates. Rates stayed mostly constant from then until the 2000s when they began to drop off, reaching a near once-in-a-lifetime historic low just a few years ago.

Wages haven’t risen with inflation to allow others to reap the benefits of buying in and waiting for their property values to soar. And the topic in this particular thread isn’t renting vs buying. The original commenter stated that the article didn’t consider their parents’ 12% mortgage rate. This specific discussion is about whether holding onto a 12% loan for thirty years at a starting 1990 salary is equivalent to today’s rate with today’s prices at today’s salary—and it’s not.

path: 0 6760434 6761086 6761360 6761725, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0

QuarterSwede 1 point 3 years ago

I’m not disagreeing. It’s worse now. But it’s not nearly as a gulf as they’re trying to make it sound. Remember, 12% was basically rock bottom and not average. I am curious as to what the difference amortized is, just too tired to find the calculator at the moment.

path: 0 6760434 6761086 6761356, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 6

hungrycat 9 points 3 years ago

That’s not true though. The average 30-year fixed rate in 1990 was a little over 10%.

path: 0 6760434 6761086 6761356 6761801, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 5

QuarterSwede 1 point 3 years ago

Why are you assuming it was the 90s?

path: 0 6760434 6761086 6761356 6761801 6761990, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 4

MonsiuerPatEBrown -5 points 3 years ago

Sounds like someone is worried about "their" inheritance.

path: 0 6760434 6760605, hotness: undefined, score: -5, children: 2

QuarterSwede 8 points 3 years ago

My wife and I are quite well off and don’t want or need their money or property. I’d be happy if they get to the end and just used up the last cent. They’ve earned it!

path: 0 6760434 6760605 6760704, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 1

hungrycat 2 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6760434 6760605 6760704 6761051, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

MrJameGumb 19 points 3 years ago

Why should they have to move? What is this unwritten law that says after 30 years you're required to sell your family home to someone younger? I get that the baby boomer generation has fucked up a lot, but I don't see why anyone should have to silently pack their belongings and shuffle off to a nursing home just because Junior wants his first big boy house...

path: 0 6761421, hotness: undefined, score: 19, children: 2

the_q -10 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6761421 6763440, hotness: undefined, score: -10, children: 1

betterdeadthanreddit 0 points 3 years ago

They will eventually (though only once). It's one of two certainties in life and the other is taxes.

path: 0 6761421 6763440 6769381, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

quams69 18 points 3 years ago

Boomers are not the enemy. Corporations are.

path: 0 6803677, hotness: undefined, score: 18, children: 3

Bonskreeskreeskree 6 points 3 years ago

Who is the main age group fighting against progressive policy of action against corporations? Boomers

path: 0 6803677 6804359, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 2

uienia 2 points 3 years ago

They have got you chasing a red herring by being obsessed with the age of people instead of their beliefs. There are reactionary fascists in all age groups, new young generations of fascists are being hatched right as we speak. It isn't the age of the individual which perpetuates it, there are far more wide reaching factors involved.

path: 0 6803677 6804359 6822492, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

nbafantest -5 points 3 years ago

Pretty much everyone on both sides. Leftists hate action on housing because developers can make some profit providing housing for people

path: 0 6803677 6804359 6804967, hotness: undefined, score: -5, children: 0

lolcatnip 18 points 3 years ago

My parents live in Texas and I live in WA. They say they wish they could afford to live closer to me, but based on their actions it seems like they value having a big piece of real estate more than they value being close to me.

path: 0 6763667, hotness: undefined, score: 18, children: 4

sfgifz 5 points 3 years ago

Or maybe they're happy living where they've lived for so long, in a big comfortable property, rather than uproot everything they've known to live close to you with no guarantee that you'll visit regularly and not move again for another job.

path: 0 6763667 6774529, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1

lolcatnip 0 points 3 years ago

Or maybe I know the situation better than you.

They haven't lived in their house very long, they have virtually no community connections there, they don't like it much, and it's pretty obvious that I'm not planning another cross country move ever.

But go off.

path: 0 6763667 6774529 6779762, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

Psiczar 1 point 3 years ago

Did they move away from you or did you move away from them?

path: 0 6763667 6779860, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1

lolcatnip 1 point 3 years ago

What difference does that make? I have just as much right to choose where I live as they do to choose where they live.

path: 0 6763667 6779860 6779861, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

w3dd1e 15 points 3 years ago

They can’t sell. Their adult children have to live with them since they can’t afford anything else.

path: 0 6765256, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 0

OpenStars 14 points 3 years ago

I wrote out a very angry reply, but as often happens, as I cooled down and reflected, it was 100% the result of this enormously clickbait title, not the article itself.

The article itself DOES mention the mortgage rates, and it DOES acknowledge that Boomers might be willing to move out (in direct contradiction to its own title) but cannot bc of a shortage of affordable smaller homes, the same as everyone else.

In short, Boomers are trapped too - again it's not that they "won't" so much as they "can't" - even if sitting better in a home that they (hopefully) own rather than having to rent.

There is simply no excuse for such a rage-baiting, purposefully combative title.:-( Maybe we need to start using AI to generate new titles to replace those profit-mongering ones? :-)

path: 0 6761540, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 10

rimu 4 points 3 years ago

One of the rules of this community is you must use the same title for your post as the news article title.

So now we have quite a few clickbait & ragebait titles, because that's what the corps are doing. Pretty dumb rule, IMO.

path: 0 6761540 6768929, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 7

OpenStars 1 point 3 years ago

Rules can change, but mainly I mean that we need to be the change we want to see in the world. e.g. maybe not even allow articles labeled as "news" that are meant only to distract our attention away from corporations' profit margins, being written by conservative right-wing propaganda arms of the media such as [checks notes] "CNN". Well... shit.

path: 0 6761540 6768929 6774984, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 6

rimu 1 point 3 years ago

Yes, some kind of minimum standard would be good.

On piefed.social there are over 3000 domains that cannot be linked to, including all the alt-right propaganda ones. Brietbart, Russia Today, etc. I wouldn't go as far as including CNN in that list though.

path: 0 6761540 6768929 6774984 6783200, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 5

OpenStars 1 point 3 years ago

To clarify: I was being mostly tongue-in-cheek on that part. Most of the time you do not associate "CNN" with "right-wing propaganda", as while it may not be entirely unbiased it does not lie so far on the spectrum as to deserve that label of "propaganda". Or at least it has not been that way in the past?

The cussing at the end though was to indicate my absolute surprise at finding that this article is now contributing towards its inching closer to earning that distinction though. Or at least the title of this article accomplishes that effect, even though the content itself does not. Also, I noticed that this is not an "opinion" piece, nor at the end do they have a disclaimer that the views of the author may not necessarily reflect that of the journal - so this seems fully supported by the editorial staff at CNN Business?

Fwiw, I wonder if they even care which political direction it pushes people towards - so long as it makes people angry, their profits increase by people clicking on it?

Ofc I agree that CNN Business is not as far advanced along the propaganda spectrum as those others you listed (in those, the content itself would be biased as well)... but neither is CNN Business unbiased either, apparently. Just look at how many incendiary words & phrases are used - they "won't part" (like a toddler holding a toy?), the direct interpretation that "that's a problem", the "think of the children" tactic, not calling them "Generation Baby Boomer" or some such but the almost pejorative these days "Boomers", and using right out of the gate as almost a verb like BOOM those old farts did another thing again, now click to find out why you should be angry!? (which itself, like propaganda tends to do, implies the never-ending NOW that is all that is assumed to ever matter to the reader, not "this is happening lately" or "there is a trend showing up recently", but "[THEY] WON'T PART", as if that stage will continue forever without some inertia-stopping force to stop this "problem for young families" - a force that will demand ACTION? which btw is what drives the urge to click the article, b/c otherwise mere information delivery could allow someone to read the title and move on with their lives, but no, this article must be CLICKED, IMMEDIATELY!) Later, the article itself softens this heavy pushing of phrases considerably - e.g. note the switch inside to now "Baby Boomers", and putting transition words in front of it to shift the focus away from them and more on the nature of the underlying transitioning effect itself (e.g. "Meanwhile, Baby Boomers...", as in a process that is currently underway, over the course of some period of time, rather than the "BOOMERS WON'T PART" in more active, and urgent, voice).

So... from the title alone, it sure looks an awful lot like propaganda to me? I hope to see less of this from CNN Business in the future, but if instead I see more then I will have to update my view on where they stand on that spectrum. Again, at least in reference to their titles as separate from the actual article content.

Thank you for this chance to vent btw, and your perspective does help clarify matters.:-)

path: 0 6761540 6768929 6774984 6783200 6785586, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 4

Rentlar 3 points 3 years ago

I'm here to say thank you for keeping your cool on the internet despite the clickbait and somewhat ragebait headline.

This definitely helps make the Fediverse a nicer place.

path: 0 6761540 6764043, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1

OpenStars 1 point 3 years ago

Thank you for the thanks, and sorry that someone is downvoting you even for saying that much. At this point I think I'll start wearing my downvotes as a matter of pride just like on ole Reddit. I would very much like it if the Fediverse would be cleaner and nicer than where we left, so indeed that starts with myself.:-)

path: 0 6761540 6764043 6774911, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

Mango 14 points 3 years ago

Nobody expects anyone to give up their own home.

path: 0 6775346, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 2

skeezix 2 points 3 years ago

The article wants you to tell grandma to get the fuck out.

path: 0 6775346 6782905, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1

Mango 2 points 3 years ago

I'll just take those "journalists'" houses instead.

path: 0 6775346 6782905 6783712, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

Birdie 14 points 3 years ago

And where is it suggested boomers should live? My MIL has a paid-for home, but is now in assisted living. It costs 6K a month, which is eating through her savings at a shocking rate, even though we're paying a portion of her AL rent.

If she had the ability to stay home, you better believe she would, because she can't afford to part with her home.

path: 0 6807499, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 4

hydrospanner 10 points 3 years ago

I don't mean to sound insensitive, but I'm genuinely curious: your MIL is in expensive assisted living yet still owns a home she's no longer living in? Wouldn't the move here be to sell the home now with housing prices so high, and use the profits from it to fund the assisted living expenses?

path: 0 6807499 6808108, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 3

Birdie 4 points 3 years ago

Not insensitive at all. It isn't worth a lot as far as selling goes, but it does generate good income as a rental.

I actually agree with you, but I'm the DIL, and my husband and MIL agreed on renting.

path: 0 6807499 6808108 6808217, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 2

hydrospanner 2 points 3 years ago

I mean, in this case it's what works for her then, but it's literally the exact sort of thing the article is dealing with.

Worse in this case because she's owning the home, not living in it, and using it to generate passive income, specifically preventing what might have been a younger generation of homeowners from making that investment and instead forcing them into the very rental market she's profiting from.

And I'm not saying she's a bad person or a bad landlord or anything, just that this is an example supporting the piece, not an exception to it.

path: 0 6807499 6808108 6808217 6817825, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1

Birdie 0 points 3 years ago

I actually agree with you much more than I disagree.

It's part of a family trust, meant to be passed on. Think 150 year old home that hasn't been renovated since the 60s.

It is near a university and has several bedrooms, so it's generating enough income to help pay her rent. It is literally worth more as a rental than a sell. And one day my poor kids will have to deal with this millstone around their necks.

If my MIL did sell, it would probably be torn down and replaced with an apt complex/student housing.

path: 0 6807499 6808108 6808217 6817825 6837852, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

Garbanzo 11 points 3 years ago

It's extra fucked in California because the boomers passed a law to set property taxes at the time of purchase and only allow for small increases over the years. Rising home prices don't have corresponding rising taxes so the old farts are never priced out of their huge empty houses.

path: 0 6761013, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 5

Deceptichum 14 points 3 years ago

Heaping ever increasing taxes on the elderly doesn't sound ideal either tbh.

Imagine having to give up your home because your neighbours property value increased and thus your taxes went up due to the increased value of your home. Sure you could sell away your life and move into a smaller building in a different part of the country (or worse, a retirement home), but should we advocate for people to lose their homes when a better solution is for government to build more affordable housing for people?

path: 0 6761013 6761562, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 4

Garbanzo 2 points 3 years ago

Imagine giving immortal corporations a property tax based on 1976 prices plus a maximum annual increase of 2% instead of just granting an exception to property taxes for your primary residence. Imagine leaving your grandkids with no money to run a government because you're that fucking dumb and greedy. Fuck the boomers, I hope the PG&E bills to cool their giant homes fucking bury them.

path: 0 6761013 6761562 6768373, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

lolcatnip 1 point 3 years ago

I've moved 8 times in the last 15 years so I can't say I feel too bad about the idea of people "losing" their home by selling it and moving somewhere smaller.

path: 0 6761013 6761562 6763771, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2

Deceptichum 3 points 3 years ago

So because you have it shitty, everyone else should join you?

All I’d like is a place to settle down and become part of a community. I’m sick of being transient because of capitalism.

path: 0 6761013 6761562 6763771 6765537, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1

lolcatnip 1 point 3 years ago

Who said I have it bad?

path: 0 6761013 6761562 6763771 6765537 6779795, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

rusticus 10 points 3 years ago

Corporations and foreign countries are buying up real estate like crazy and OP wants to blame retired people? STFU.

path: 0 6814825, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 0

FlyingSquid 9 points 3 years ago

Yeah, old people! Get out of your houses! Die in the street for everyone else's benefit!

Just like how you were supposed to die to vote for Trump in the Iowa caucus and die from COVID to help the economy.

The point is, this is entirely your fault and we hate you and go die. In a hole preferably, so we don't have to hear you moan about needing social security and medicare.

Sincerely,

Republicans

(P.S. Vote for us before you die! Kthx.)

path: 0 6775007, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 11

ArcaneSlime -8 points 3 years ago

For sure, you know those famous republican rags "CNN." "Indipendent.co.uk" and "Vanity Fair."

path: 0 6775007 6775261, hotness: undefined, score: -8, children: 10

FlyingSquid 8 points 3 years ago

Sorry... are you under the absolute bizarre impression that because I linked to two articles that quote what Republicans say, I am saying those two sources are Republican?

As for CNN... who just hosted a pointless Republican debate?

path: 0 6775007 6775261 6775324, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 9

ArcaneSlime -5 points 3 years ago

I just think it's funny to be complaining about the republicans doing something and post three sources of their opposition doing the it, instead of finding three republican "pro killing boomers and making them leave their homes" articles which I'm sure you could have.

As for CNN... who just hosted a pointless Republican debate?

So you're doubling down on CNN being the republican's news outlet? Oh right I forgot about the party switch, you know, when all the CNN guys became republicans and all the Fox guys became Democrats. Silly me.

path: 0 6775007 6775261 6775324 6775862, hotness: undefined, score: -5, children: 8

FlyingSquid 2 points 3 years ago

I suppose I could have found articles about things I didn't know people said, but I decided to go with the ones I did know about.

And CNN is whatever its WB masters think will most benefit them... but if you think it's left-wing to allow two Republicans to spend a huge amount of prime time on your news network spewing their false talking points unchallenged except by each other, I don't know what to tell you.

path: 0 6775007 6775261 6775324 6775862 6775920, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 7

DrMango 9 points 3 years ago

Not sure how common this is nationally, but around here it's also common for the older generation to maintain two properties a "home" in the city/metro area near their kids or grandkids and a "cabin" which is literally a second home somewhere else.

I think it'd be great to give up the home in the metro and downsize to a condo or apartment, but that's just me.

path: 0 6775803, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 1

thisorthatorwhatever 2 points 3 years ago

Good luck finding a condo. Plus all the fees of moving and taxes.

path: 0 6775803 6777042, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

Reddfugee42 8 points 3 years ago

No it's not. Hedge funds and banks and corporations are buying the starter homes. The homes boomers are in are not the starter homes.

This entire line of thinking is a red herring to distract from hedge funds destroying our housing economy.

path: 0 6815115, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0

SuiXi3D 8 points 3 years ago

My 90 year old grandmother refuses to go to a nursing home (and honestly I can’t blame her) and actually just blew a ton of money getting her home remodeled. She has no plans to leave until she passes away, at which point the house will go to my father who has plans to sell it.

Meanwhile, my wife and I barely make the median income amount and, at 36, we’re never going to be able to afford a home.

path: 0 6780201, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 3

stoly 6 points 3 years ago

And your dad will spend that money like it will never end, leaving you with nothing.

path: 0 6780201 6784690, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 2

SuiXi3D 6 points 3 years ago

Mhm. He and my mother plan on moving to Alaska with my uncle.

path: 0 6780201 6784690 6784752, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 1

stoly 6 points 3 years ago

Amazing. They got their shot and are still hoarding it. So sad.

If my parents invested a FRACTION of the money they have just thrown out into the world in their children, our lives would be so much better. They really have always just done whatever made them happy, hey, we're adults, right, they aren't responsible for us anymore or something.

path: 0 6780201 6784690 6784752 6785097, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0

ApexHunter 7 points 3 years ago

I bought my first house in 2010, during the last dip in the housing market. Sold every asset I could for the down payment and end up with a mortgage payment I could afford. The value of the home has since increased 3x from when I bought it; I couldn't afford to buy the place today, let alone move someplace else. My major source of frustration has been property taxes, which now cost 1.5x more than my mortgage payment. I'm not entirely certain I'll be able to STAY in this place if they keep going up 20%/year like they have been.

path: 0 6765585, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 1

sylver_dragon 2 points 3 years ago

Somewhat similar here. Bought in 2011, with housing prices still depressed by the 2008 crash. Since then, we've put a good bit of money into the place (it needed work, still does). We also have kids now, so the space is really nice to have. The house now appraises for 2.5-3x what we spent for it, which is not justified by the money we've spent on it and is mostly driven by the market going nuts. While we might be able to swing the mortgage, were we to be buying the place now, it'd be very tight. Also, there's just no incentive to move. The local schools are good. The neighborhood is nice, I work from home (wife doesn't work), so there is no commute. We know and like our neighbors and regularly have neighborhood BBQs in the cul-de-sac.. Sure, when the kids are gone, we might consider a smaller home further out, with more land and less neighbors. But more likely, we're just going to keep putting money and effort into this house and let the kids drag our desiccated corpses out of the place.

path: 0 6765585 6775954, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

ramenshaman 6 points 3 years ago

I feel like most of the thumbnails I see for news articles are AI generated now.

path: 0 6772137, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 2

samus12345 1 point 3 years ago

This one's real.

path: 0 6772137 6777103, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1

ramenshaman 1 point 3 years ago

Wtf. Some of those houses are ridiculous.

path: 0 6772137 6777103 6782836, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

blazera 4 points 3 years ago

They trying to distract us. I aint looking at the single home owning boomers, its landlords and corporate real estate companies hoarding homes.

path: 0 6762565, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

ZombiFrancis 4 points 3 years ago

Baby Boomers, Millenials, amd Gen Z account for.. 42% of homes.

Classic Gen X erasure aside... I have doubt Gen X owns the remaining 58% today. The article does mention 18% of gen X owned 10 years ago. And I am doubtful the Silent Generation is still clinging to their numbers.

And so under the most charitable interpretation: that is still a 20% gap of ownership by what I can only assume is a business enterprise.

path: 0 6777602, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1

wowbagger_ 1 point 3 years ago

This article is cherry picking numbers from a Redfin study. It says 28% empty-nest Boomers vs 14% Millennials with kids. Together those two subsets own 42% of large homes (3+ bedrooms). So that doesn't account for elder GenZ, Millennials without kids, all of GenX, and any boomers that don't count as "empty-nest" for whatever reason. It's not half corps like everyone keeps saying.

path: 0 6777602 6785352, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

OldWoodFrame 3 points 3 years ago

~3000 baby boomers die every day.

Some of them will part with their homes.

path: 0 6779233, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 4

lightnsfw 2 points 3 years ago

Hopefully most of those homes go to their kids so they can actually have a chance at home ownership in this shithole of a world we've built.

path: 0 6779233 6780159, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 2

skeezix 1 point 3 years ago

🎶I see babies crying… 🎶

path: 0 6779233 6780159 6782873, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

RBWells 0 points 3 years ago

I think inheritance is one of the evils in the world. Why should I have something because my parents did? It focuses and increases inequality. Not saying you are wrong in the world we currently live in, and I know it's too complicated to implement but I wish wealth was distributed out when people died. So we could start on a more even playing field.

path: 0 6779233 6780159 6787812, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

RBWells 2 points 3 years ago

Yeah my husband laughed at me when I said I wanted to move to this neighborhood because when I walked the dog I saw all these truly ancient people mowing their lawns, and figured:

People like it here enough to stay till they die
There would be a bunch of houses for sale when those owners died.

but he sure loves it here now. One day we will be those ancient people.

path: 0 6779233 6787721, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

Tristaniopsis 1 point 3 years ago

This isn’t the ‘Boomers’ fault. It’s large corporate property portfolios vacuuming up houses and land to take in the lovely extortion… uh…‘rent’ monies.

path: 0 6799853, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

DrSleepless 1 point 3 years ago

Eventually they will

path: 0 6760915, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

driving_crooner 1 point 3 years ago

path: 0 6760968, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

ExLisper 0 points 3 years ago

What comes after Gen Z? Gen A? Gen Ź? Gen [?

path: 0 6770181, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 7

cedarmesa 10 points 3 years ago

path: 0 6770181 6771730, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 0

SoylentBlake 10 points 3 years ago

Currently called gen Alpha

path: 0 6770181 6770282, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 3

ExLisper -1 points 3 years ago

Ok, so going back to the beginning. Interesting choice. I would prefer Gen [. Can we agree to call then Gen [?

path: 0 6770181 6770282 6771686, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 2

Arrkk 3 points 3 years ago

Well the Greek alphabet, presumably we will get Beta and Gamma next.

path: 0 6770181 6770282 6771686 6771734, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

werefreeatlast 1 point 3 years ago

Seems fitting, it's the roaring 20s again. We're going to be building up to the faithful days of the 2029 market crash. This time with real serious dumpster diving. You talk about finding half a burger and climbing into one of these things next to a tall building... Nah, think 50 floor diving in right on the burger, lid closed or open, head first. Yeah, it's building up!

path: 0 6770181 6770282 6771686 6772269, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

FlyingSquid 2 points 3 years ago

Here's the fun part. It started with X and the definition of who is Generation X keeps changing. Originally, Boomers were Generation X.

https://en.wikipedia.org/...

path: 0 6770181 6775056, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

SoylentBlake 1 point 3 years ago

path: 0 6770181 6770296, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

beebarfbadger 0 points 3 years ago

But it's not a problem for boomers who like having all the stuff and not sharing, so why change it?

What do you mean by "other people"?

path: 0 6776359, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

bstix -1 points 3 years ago

Hmm. In my opinion it's preferable if the boomers keep their houses so their children can inherit the value.

Where I live, it's a bigger issue that boomers sell their houses too cheap to companies that demolish the house to build apartments. The boomers then waste the money on renting overpriced apartments for the rest of their life.

I get that it's difficult to maintain a house as you grow older and these houses are usually not well maintained, but they're really just pissing their value away.

path: 0 6769921, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 3

ours 6 points 3 years ago

A bunch of apartments vs. a single-family home is better in terms of offering housing to more people.

path: 0 6769921 6770612, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 2

bstix 3 points 3 years ago

We don't have a shortage of houses where I live. We have a shortage of affordable houses. Luxury rental apartments too small for families won't help that. They're basically removing properties and increasing the prices on the market. Instead of being able to pay X amount of money to a mortgage people can now pay the same amount for renting only part of it.

path: 0 6769921 6770612 6771186, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1

ours 1 point 3 years ago

In my country... It's both!

Not enough, what is available is expensive and so is rent.

path: 0 6769921 6770612 6771186 6780908, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

trackcharlie -2 points 3 years ago

Boomers are the largest private owners of homes, even more than actual corporations that are actively buying and raising housing prices in order to pad their books.

The only way out of this is a financial collapse and that will end up killing millions before the market actually reaches a reasonable price and rate. I don't want this but this seems to be the direction the current macroeconomic conditions are heading.

2024-2028 are going to be some of the most shitty years in human history

path: 0 6778791, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 5

RaoulDook 3 points 3 years ago

2024-2028 are going to be some of the most shitty years in human history

I doubt that. Compare your modern life of general comfort to the lives that human beings lived just 200 years ago. I'd much rather live in 2024 America than 1800s America.

path: 0 6778791 6779143, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 4

trackcharlie 0 points 3 years ago

Yes, I'm sure the complete breakdown of government and banking institutions is going to maintain a reality just as good or better than the 1800's.

path: 0 6778791 6779143 6779358, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 3

RaoulDook 0 points 3 years ago

Do you know how to hunt, fish, farm, and prepare all of your own food and shelter? If not, you'd better hope to stay in modern times.

Seriously, people literally do not realize how good life is because all they know is complaining about what's not perfect.

Having electricity, running water, toilets, access to just about any information in the world with the Internet... all that you take for granted. They did not have most of our modern amenities for the vast majority of human history before our modern times. Life was a fucking brutal struggle for survival for much more of humanity then than it is now.

path: 0 6778791 6779143 6779358 6779454, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 2

trackcharlie 1 point 3 years ago

Yea, and I'm making the case that we're heading back there or worse, given the macroeconomic outlook and the overall failing of the regulatory bodies responsible for the banking industries globally.

path: 0 6778791 6779143 6779358 6779454 6779546, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1

ArugulaZ -3 points 3 years ago

Gee, boomers are being selfish! Who would have guessed?

path: 0 6764118, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 0

Yoz -4 points 3 years ago

Probably because of this young people have stopped respecting boomers. Last week a guy in his 20's assaulted a boomer at our local grocery shop.

path: 0 6786011, hotness: undefined, score: -4, children: 0

news

@lemmy.world

login for more options

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

go to feed...

news

@lemmy.world

login for more options

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

go to feed...