Baby Boomers U.S. Worst Generation?

#476
#476
DinkinFlicka said:
I would be shocked if that were true.

The housing market (both rental and buying/selling) has nearly doubled in some places in the past three years alone.
Click to expand...

Some places vs the national average are two different things. Can you cherry pick specific places that have higher than average increases? Sure. You can do the same with income too.

But on average income year over year has w housing, food, etc. Which is why Americans today are wealthier than those of any previous time period
 
#479
#479
the home size thing interesting. market demands bigger homes, bigger homes cost more money, homes become harder to buy.

free money from the Fed has the same effect as student loans subsidies - drives the product cost higher.

given there is not a housing surplus, builders opt for larger homes to make more $

some of the complaints about houses being too expensive for first time buyers is because first time buyers want big houses in great neighborhoods
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, 825VOL, StarRaider and 2 others
#480
#480
https://www.thezebra.com/resources/home/median-home-size-in-us/

and

Size of floor area in new single-family homes in the U.S. 1975-2021
Published by Statista Research Department, Nov 17, 2022
In 2021, the average size of a single-family home built for sale in the United States amounted to 2,485 square feet. Although in the past five years American homes have been shrinking, since 1975, they have almost doubled in size. This trend towards larger homes seems illogical given that the average size of families has shrunk over the same period.

Why are American homes so large?
Homes in the U.S. are among the largest in the world, only surpassed by Australia. There are thought to be several reasons for this, including the concentration of wealth in the country, and the deeply engrained driving culture which means that cheaper land outside city centers is easily accessible.

Where are the largest homes located?
The size of homes also varies regionally, with the largest homes being located in wealthy, urban areas and in the South. Large homes, or McMansions as they’re often called, are especially popular in Texas with Houston leading the pack in 2018.
 
  • Like
Reactions: red butler, StarRaider and Vol8188
#482
#482
volinbham said:
the home size thing interesting. market demands bigger homes, bigger homes cost more money, homes become harder to buy.

free money from the Fed has the same effect as student loans subsidies - drives the product cost higher.

given there is not a housing surplus, builders opt for larger homes to make more $

some of the complaints about houses being too expensive for first time buyers is because first time buyers want big houses in great neighborhoods
Click to expand...

In my hometown, there is a big fight about a county regulation that requires each new residence to have its own dedicated sewer line to the city. Builders cannot build 1 line to 2 small homes right next to each other, or to duplexes, even. I believe I heard it estimated that it adds $10k to the building cost. This interference in the market pushes the margins and it artificially makes more sense for builders facing that new fixed cost to build bigger homes for better ROI. So basically all the modest-sized housing (let's say 1k - 2k sq feet) comes in the form of older homes, and new homes are 2,500+ sq feet.

It's a college town but it's a college you never heard of and there is no reason for real estate to be expensive there. There are lots of young families and very few can afford to buy. It's kept the landlord's in good shape, though.

You're not wrong about your points, but what I'm saying is we've (all generations) definitely messed up the housing market. That small market was not demanding bigger housing.

Most things get cheaper over time. Wages increase relative to most products in the long run. Excluding the price of the land, housing should be cheaper to build per sq foot today than it was in the past. I don't think it is, even if you didn't use fancy appliances or fixtures. It's an interesting question.
 
#483
#483
n_huffhines said:
In my hometown, there is a big fight about a county regulation that requires each new residence to have its own dedicated sewer line to the city. Builders cannot build 1 line to 2 small homes right next to each other, or to duplexes, even. I believe I heard it estimated that it adds $10k to the building cost. This interference in the market pushes the margins and it artificially makes more sense for builders facing that new fixed cost to build bigger homes for better ROI. So basically all the modest-sized housing (let's say 1k - 2k sq feet) comes in the form of older homes, and new homes are 2,500+ sq feet.

It's a college town but it's a college you never heard of and there is no reason for real estate to be expensive there. There are lots of young families and very few can afford to buy. It's kept the landlord's in good shape, though.

You're not wrong about your points, but what I'm saying is we've (all generations) definitely messed up the housing market. That small market was not demanding bigger housing.

Most things get cheaper over time. Wages increase relative to most products in the long run. Excluding the price of the land, housing should be cheaper to build per sq foot today than it was in the past. I don't think it is, even if you didn't use fancy appliances or fixtures. It's an interesting question.
Click to expand...


was in a meeting for a local community and they pointed out that the break even on property taxes for the corresponding city services was over $400K - so even the community is incentivized to have houses that aren't affordable for first time buyers. the taxes on a $200K house won't even pay for trash service. they recognize the problem that they lose residents to cheaper, farther suburbs when the move from apartment to first home but for the given remaining home sites developers aren't real interested in building the cheaper homes and the city services would run at a loss for them
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
#486
#486
Society has declined incrementally for decades. To place some artificial markers on generation is the dumbest ****.

Lets see what happens with later generations..not that I think there are some subjective yearly metrics of being "assigned" to a label.

Way I look at it..you are ****ing yourselves much more than the "Boomers"
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#491
#491
Orangeburst said:
Or could it be that you are exposed as well and not a Boomer? Please share your wisdom. Or will this get deleted. Sad
Click to expand...
Of course I'm exposed to losses at my age. No one of boomer age should be exposed to lose a qtr of their retirement unless they have no clue what's going on. Does this not make sense?
 
#492
#492
Orangeburst said:
Society has declined incrementally for decades. To place some artificial markers on generation is the dumbest ****.

Lets see what happens with later generations..not that I think there are some subjective yearly metrics of being "assigned" to a label.

Way I look at it..you are ****ing yourselves much more than the "Boomers"
Click to expand...
Where have you been. It's a continuum man. From the teachings of Luther; Book 4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Orangeburst
#493
#493
utvolpj said:
Of course I'm exposed to losses at my age. No one of boomer age should be exposed to lose a qtr of their retirement unless they have no clue what's going on. Does this not make sense?
Click to expand...

Fair. But my whole premise of argument was it is some devised liberal logic of generation. Of course older people will be at the loss of wins or gain having more invested in 401K.

Let's look at the whatever generational "label". which is BS..it is a BOX. I hate the BOX..and you use it all the time in ideology

Otherwise other than your own personal anecdote..how are the post Boomers doing?
 
#494
#494
Orangeburst said:
Fair. But my whole premise of argument was it is some devised liberal logic of generation. Of course older people will be at the loss of wins or gain having more invested in 401K.

Let's look at the whatever generational "label". which is BS..it is a BOX. I hate the BOX..and you use it all the time in ideology

Otherwise other than your own personal anecdote..how are the post Boomers doing?
Click to expand...
% lost doesn't care how much you have in the account. Older people should go toward less risk. If they are still exposed to such great losses then they're doing it wrong

Besides that I have absolutely no clue what you're saying. Drinking tonight?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#495
#495
utvolpj said:
% lost doesn't care how much you have in the account. Older people should go toward less risk. If they are still exposed to such great losses then they're doing it wrong

Besides that I have absolutely no clue what you're saying. Drinking tonight?
Click to expand...


The average individual retirement account balance also plunged 20% year over year to $104,000 in the fourth quarter of 2022.

Miss that? Or are retirees only 3% worse?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#498
#498
utvolpj said:
Quarter vs year
Click to expand...

Older folks are not as knowledgeable to current tech or whatever that drives growth. To blame our current fiscal and political situation on some label "Boomer" is bad and we are better is foolish

Watching it play out real time
 
#500
#500
Orangeburst said:
Older folks are not as knowledgeable to current tech or whatever that drives growth. To blame our current fiscal and political situation on some label "Boomer" is bad and we are better is foolish

Watching it play out real time
Click to expand...
What does any of that have to do with risk? Someone retired shouldn't be exposed to risk that would take 23% of their savings. They're doing it wrong and once they outlive their savings they'll come looking for a handout. That's why ras made the bootstrap remark
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top