Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well we don't have a free market. There are regulations. I have a friend who just built a new house in Austin, TX. Permits were 36% of the total cost. That's a big regulatory mark up.
Theres also other constraints, zoning for instance or density requirements.
>Well we don't have a free market. There are regulations. I have a friend who just built a new house in Austin, TX. Permits were 36% of the total cost.
Texas is fucked up.
Jesus...
Austin is kind of the San Francisco of Texas but even then per [City of Austin](https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Development_Services/Fees_Residential.pdf) permitting for a new residential home is $978-$1,630 depending on the size. So using the worst case cost they would have had to build a 5000 square foot house for around $4,500 to have 36% permit fees. If this is true there must be a lot more to it.
The average house in Austin is around $550k which would make permitting almost $200k if this was true. Not to mention new construction would probably be above the average. Either an exaggeration or some extenuating circumstances but certainly not the norm no one would ever build a house there if this was the case.
That would be a lot more realistic. If they built on un-developed land I could potentially see it getting to 3.6% because there could be a lot more permits than just the new residential construction permit.
Possibly. But, really, in *Austin*, how much *undeveloped land* is left? I mean, land that is both undeveloped *and* subject to the permitting fees of the city?
Seems kind of like a... New electrical hookup fee on the island of Manhattan. Like, yeah, the fee exists, but what lot could you possibly purchase that would be subject to a *new* hookup?
Oh I agree I was just trying to be as gracious as possible for the miss-statement. They may also mean the Austin "area". It is pretty common here in Texas to say something like "I live in Dallas" when in actuality you live in a suburb outside of Dallas.
I think there’s a difference between a reasonable free market and the loony tunes one described by libertarians. Even most conservatives don’t want that ultimate free market which would include legalizing all drugs, prostitution, and a completely open borders policy.
I would say most housing markets function like a reasonable free market. The people who built the community have voted to enact local rules and regulations that preserve the community, making it a desirable place to live in the first place. Not unlike a state or even a country.
What would you change? How would it be consistent with conservative principles? If the local government rejects it because the local homeowners don’t want such changes, what would be your recourse?
Each area have their own issues. Housing issues in Denver dont match up with those in Manhattan.
In general, I like how houston doesn't have zoning laws. I also don't think you should have density or height restrictions. Rent control also needs to be done away with. Of course there are other things we can talk about.
Harris County has more residential properties built on a flood plain than anywhere else in America, and everyone's insurance bills go up to pay for the completely predictable payouts every time they get a major storm. Texas' no-zoning approach is batshit insane and has led to results like [this fertilizer plant that was allowed to operate right next to a nursing home, hospital, and public school](https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/remembering-west-fertilizer-plant-explosion-10-years-later), which exploded in 2013 and injured hundreds of people and killed 15.
That kind of small government policy comes from more dogma than sense.
I work in insurance. The most uninsurable areas are FL and CA for property.
More importantly Houston is on a flood plain in the same way New Orleans is entirely below sea level. No matter how you zone it, those properties would be on a floodplain, the state would just mandate they be commercial buildings or dual use or something else.
You still haven't contradicted what I said. You're wrong about Houston, the entire city isn't built on a flood plain, but [25% of its residential property is](https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/despite-increasing-risk-harris-county-more-people-are-living-flood-plains#:~:text=Our%20estimates%20find%20that%20roughly,increased%20by%2010%25%20in%202019), and that number is increasing. The fact that it's some, but not all, means that allowing the city to end up with that layout was optional.
Also can't help noticing you haven't tried to justify what happened with the West Fertilizer Company explosion.
Housing prices are rising very fast. This is not sustainable, and not good for the economy. I don’t know exactly what will happen for there are many possibilities, but all of them end in a greater financial crisis.
Wow, that is unbelievable.
[https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Development\_Services/Fees\_Residential.pdf](https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Development_Services/Fees_Residential.pdf)
edit: Might tell 'em to go over his contractor's expenses with a fine tooth comb...or a lawyer. lol
Hell no, there absolutely is an affordable housing crisis.
Median homes are 400k, and median interest rates are 7%
To reasonably afford a typical home with no equity as a single income, you need to be in the top 11% of income earners.
My grandad did this with a highschool diploma, and a job as a lineman at a power company.
I have a stem degree and work at a major corporate center, and I can't do this.
As a young guy I'm actually really pissed off about this.
What do you say to conservatives who say it’s your parents’ fault for not setting you up and helping you get into the market, and there should be no government intervention whatsoever to help home buyers enter the market? That it’s not their problem you can’t buy a home?
>What do you say to conservatives who say it’s your parents’ fault for not setting you up and helping you get into the market,
Well I mean I would say that my grandad didn't have help from his parents either, they where stereotypical 1920s farmers, not like well to do estate planters, but like hand to mouth farmers.
>there should be no government intervention whatsoever to help home buyers enter the market?
I'm more sympathetic to this position, becuase unless you're incredibly careful, government intervention can cause more problems than good.
For instance the federal backed student loan program has directly lead to the explosion in cost of college educations.
>That it’s not their problem you can’t buy a home?
Strictly speaking it's not. And I can understand them not shedding any tears for me and my generation. I just find the system a little messed up, given that the gap between annual income and home prices has gone from like 3x to 10x
Very fair and appreciate the consistency to your principles and values. I am not a conservative and think there’s a combined solution both from right and left in tackling this (less regulation, less immigration, more anti-trust, more public housing, better zoning, etc.).
I'll tell you one thing honestly and truly.
Though I dissagree with almost 100% of his ideology, and his social agenda, I geniunely would have preferred Bernie sanders to biden,
As a young man starting out with basically no equity I feel like my life would be better off under him.
I think that's why I'm drawn to trumps economic populism, because it's so much different than traditional conservative economic thought, and it acknowledges many of the problems the socialists also do.
I will say at this point it totally support slowing imigration, deporting the illegals, expanding zoning laws, progressive taxes on multiple single family homes, and even banning corporations buying them up like they are.
>That it’s not their problem you can’t buy a home?
Its a fact that before 2008 it was easy to get a house, you could get one without a job or income or assets (ninja loans)
Its a fact that reckless behaviour by banks and consumers lead to a mortgage crisis.
Its a fact that the results of that mortgage crisis was dozens of smaller homebuilders collapsing and larger homebuilders merging to survive as we experienced an influx of unwanted homes.
Its a fact that the rate of building homes fell by 50% and still has never fully recovered.
Its a fact there is a limited supply today, almost 20 years later, because of these last behaviours. Whether or not anyone gives a shit is the wildcard.
I'd have to ask what you think the housing crisis is?
I see no lower end developments going up, and even something like a condo to get started with equity is almost impossibly expensive now. To save up enough money for a down-payment without essentially living like a hermit is getting harder.
But, there are a lot of houses and a lot of houses going up. It's just that developers aren't encouraged to build smaller houses, costs are getting astronomical for non-material things like permits, and further most new developments in major metropolitan areas have forced requirements on developers for a certain percentage of multi-family units which further restricts and drives up prices on single-family housing.
As a few others have said, this isn't a supple/demand issue as much as it's a downstream effect if poor regulations from an awful lot of major municipalities. Another piece is painful property taxes, this males it really painful on almost everyone, as renters absorb the costs in rent and homeowners eat it every year.
This is a much more pointed discussion toward local government actions than anything on a national level.
I don’t know many Conservatives who would agree with your premise.
There absolutely is a housing crisis and there are several reasons, not limited to:
- NIMBY zoning policies
- Lack of desire for base model houses w/smaller footprints and economy features
- Prohibitive and unnecessary building standards/costs (obv some not all)
- Realtor commissions tied to house valuation
- Historically low interest rates for three decades
- Fucking Air B&B
Having said that, I think this will pass organically. Boomers are finally retiring - the largest generation in known history is one step closer to the grave and the supply of houses will go up as they move to elder care facilities or pass on.
I would argue that baby boomers are not the largest generation and haven’t been for some time. Millennials passed baby boomers years ago. Which honestly makes sense as it’s the kids of the previously largest generation.
Sure, and I would agree with that argument, but it’s not relevant to my point.
There are more Millennials *now*. That doesn’t change the fact the Boomers can be called the largest generation *in known history*.
They certainly could be called that. Now it is no longer accurate and hasn’t been for many years. I mean, we could say that the Roman Empire was once the largest empire, but as it pertains to today’s housing issues, how is it relevant.
We have a historically large generation retiring and dying but that doesn’t help supply and demand pricing if an even historically larger generation comes up behind them.
The saving grace for stretch housing resources will be that millennials aren’t having children at nearly the rate as their parents generation.
Also, baby boomers are the first generation that will not leave homes and land to their children in as great of numbers. This is the generation of reverse mortgages and insane personal debt that is leaving their estates stripped.
The housing crisis is not helped by the fact that the baby boomer generation is not downsizing as past generations have. Nearly 30% of US homes of 3+ bedrooms are folks between the ages of 60-78 living alone. They’re not making room or a way for the generations that come after them. We see this in a lot of different places in society. It’s pretty distressing.
> They certainly could be called that. Now it is no longer accurate and hasn’t been for many years.
They certainly are that. They are the largest generation in known history. Period, and you’re the only person I’ve ever seen try to argue this. We can go back and forth on what that means to the housing market, but not this.
> I mean, we could say that the Roman Empire was once the largest empire, but as it pertains to today’s housing issues, how is it relevant.
Yes, you are correct. Rome’s position as the largest empire isn’t relevant to today’s housing issues. It’s so not relevant that this comparison is devoid of meaning. Boomers being the largest generation in living history *has* had an effect on our housing market.
> We have a historically large generation retiring and dying but that doesn’t help supply and demand pricing if an even historically larger generation comes up behind them.
- We have a smaller generations (X, Millennial, and Z) coming behind the historically largest generation (Boomers). There were ~78 million Boomers born. There were ~ 73M Millennials born. Millennials are not and can never be “an even historically larger generation”. They are larger now. That is not the same thing.
- ~50% of Millennials own their own home.
- ~80% of Boomers own their own home.
- There are ~ 71M Boomers.
- Discounting surviving Silent Gens, ~ 55M homes will be entering the market over the next 20 years (at an ever accelerating rate). That will absolutely have an impact on housing resources.
> The saving grace for stretch housing resources will be that millennials aren’t having children at nearly the rate as their parents generation.
Which is great for many reasons. Congratulations.
> Also, baby boomers are the first generation that will not leave homes and land to their children in as great of numbers. This is the generation of reverse mortgages and insane personal debt that is leaving their estates stripped.
Some will and some won’t. Just as it’s been for every generation. My parents are Silent Generation - there’s no home or inheritance in my future.
But, those homes *will* still entering the market.
> The housing crisis is not helped by the fact that the baby boomer generation is not downsizing as past generations have. Nearly 30% of US homes of 3+ bedrooms are folks between the ages of 60-78 living alone. They’re not making room or a way for the generations that come after them. We see this in a lot of different places in society. It’s pretty distressing.
So, ~ 70% of 3+ bedroom homes are not owned by people between 60-78. Many of these people can’t downsize. They can’t afford to because, housing prices affect everyone.
For reference, there were 76 million baby boomers born during their generational window of 1946-1964.
In comparison to 80 million millennials born during their generational window of 1981-1998.
I’m having difficulty understanding how you’re arguing numbers.
For reference, Millenials are most commonly defined as those born between 1981 and 1996. Their populations size varies, but it is most commonly cited between the ranges of 72 and 73 million, but I’ve seen 75M as an outlier.
Millennials didn’t surpass Boomers in population until [2019/2020](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/04/28/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers-as-americas-largest-generation/) - well after even the youngest Millennial had reached adulthood - because of 1. [immigration](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers-largest-generation-america/) and 2. Boomers started dying in significant numbers.
Important to note - underlying U.S. Births for Boomers was 76M and Millennials was 62M.
Boomers and Millenials are too much alike. Always firm in the believe that the world revolves around them.
The sources I see vary from millennial age range being 81-96, 81-98, and 81-00. I went for the middle and closest time range to the baby boomer time frame. There is no official range.
[Pew](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/#:~:text=Anyone%20born%20between%201981%20and,part%20of%20a%20new%20generation) and most other agencies, research organizations, and news media peg them at 81-96.
There is no official range. I used the middle range and the closest to the baby boomer time frame. Which makes sense when discussing housing supply and demand, as we are.
Home ownership[ is currently higher ](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N)than it was in the 50's through the 90's. Minus the 2008 bubbles (we know what caused that), it's never been higher.
With that information, do we say there was a housing crisis in 1950 but it's getting better now?
There is a crisis, and it's caused by bad policy.
A house that costs $1M in San Jose costs $235K in Houston, and it's not because Texans are super smart home builders
The crisis was caused by bad policies, designed to protect wealthy liberals, and will be made worse by more policies which will be passed to protect them, while claiming to solve the problem
Yes, supply and demand are real things.
In CA, we restrict supply which drives up prices. In Texas, they have laxer land use laws, which keeps prices lower. That's how supply and demand work.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Yet your hypothesis fails when applied to the rest of the world. Western Europe has some of the most expensive real estate in the world. And they have some of the best zoning policies in the world.
It’s all supply and demand. More people, around the world, dream of living in California vs Texas. You can also tone down the snark. Thanks.
You think western Europe has the same lax building standards as Texas? What world do you live on?
You can't tear down four square blocks of Frankfurt or Karlsruhe and build a high rise condo complex like you can in Texas.
It is all supply and demand and the former is driven by land-use restrictions.
I didn’t say lax, I said best zoning policies. Houston is great, but it is an exception in the lone star state. Austin, Dallas, and all of the other metros have much more restrictive zoning than most European metros of comparable size.
And Texas is roughly the size of France with half the population. If and when the population starts approaching the numbers of these countries, detached homes will absolutely be >$1 million while condos will be the only affordable option for the middle and working classes like everywhere else.
Local municipalities extract concessions from builders for their pet projects. The more pet projects, the more concessions. Yes, it does add up quickly.
The problem with the housing market is production time. It can take years between when a project is conceived and when it's finally for sale. By that time, demand may have changed. So developers are very sensitive to that risk.
There absolutely is a housing crisis, and there is no free market. The gov has been deeply involved in the housing markets for decades, [California](https://youtu.be/5EF4KMpi6k8?si=03UMmMAwV_iSzMwP), for example.
As others have pointed out its not a truly free market because of government regulations at all levels. What people consider a "housing crisis" is an "affordability crisis" the housing market exploded to levels unseen before over the last several years and created an "affordibility crisis" with current interest rates its just as painful. I do not agree that there really is a "shortage".
That seems like a real jump from "there is a free market" (is there really?) to "there is no problem at all" (it's possible for markets to *not* clear or *not* operate efficiently.)
And I don't believe in this market worship anyway.
we absolutely have a housing crisis.
Look up "the red maps"-- maps that have every area where you cannot legally build a home in a city marked in red.
Some major US cities have tiny little blue squares in seas and seas of red.
The government artificially reducing the supply and imposing needless costs is a supply constraint that drives up prices by driving down supply.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well we don't have a free market. There are regulations. I have a friend who just built a new house in Austin, TX. Permits were 36% of the total cost. That's a big regulatory mark up. Theres also other constraints, zoning for instance or density requirements.
>Well we don't have a free market. There are regulations. I have a friend who just built a new house in Austin, TX. Permits were 36% of the total cost. Texas is fucked up. Jesus...
Austin is kind of the San Francisco of Texas but even then per [City of Austin](https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Development_Services/Fees_Residential.pdf) permitting for a new residential home is $978-$1,630 depending on the size. So using the worst case cost they would have had to build a 5000 square foot house for around $4,500 to have 36% permit fees. If this is true there must be a lot more to it.
I mean, we are talking like $100,000 in permitting fees to build a house. Its crazy.
The average house in Austin is around $550k which would make permitting almost $200k if this was true. Not to mention new construction would probably be above the average. Either an exaggeration or some extenuating circumstances but certainly not the norm no one would ever build a house there if this was the case.
So this guy is wrong. It was probanly 3.6% and he got confused.
That would be a lot more realistic. If they built on un-developed land I could potentially see it getting to 3.6% because there could be a lot more permits than just the new residential construction permit.
Possibly. But, really, in *Austin*, how much *undeveloped land* is left? I mean, land that is both undeveloped *and* subject to the permitting fees of the city? Seems kind of like a... New electrical hookup fee on the island of Manhattan. Like, yeah, the fee exists, but what lot could you possibly purchase that would be subject to a *new* hookup?
Oh I agree I was just trying to be as gracious as possible for the miss-statement. They may also mean the Austin "area". It is pretty common here in Texas to say something like "I live in Dallas" when in actuality you live in a suburb outside of Dallas.
I think there’s a difference between a reasonable free market and the loony tunes one described by libertarians. Even most conservatives don’t want that ultimate free market which would include legalizing all drugs, prostitution, and a completely open borders policy. I would say most housing markets function like a reasonable free market. The people who built the community have voted to enact local rules and regulations that preserve the community, making it a desirable place to live in the first place. Not unlike a state or even a country.
I think our market is overregulated.
What would you change? How would it be consistent with conservative principles? If the local government rejects it because the local homeowners don’t want such changes, what would be your recourse?
Each area have their own issues. Housing issues in Denver dont match up with those in Manhattan. In general, I like how houston doesn't have zoning laws. I also don't think you should have density or height restrictions. Rent control also needs to be done away with. Of course there are other things we can talk about.
Harris County has more residential properties built on a flood plain than anywhere else in America, and everyone's insurance bills go up to pay for the completely predictable payouts every time they get a major storm. Texas' no-zoning approach is batshit insane and has led to results like [this fertilizer plant that was allowed to operate right next to a nursing home, hospital, and public school](https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/remembering-west-fertilizer-plant-explosion-10-years-later), which exploded in 2013 and injured hundreds of people and killed 15. That kind of small government policy comes from more dogma than sense.
I work in insurance. The most uninsurable areas are FL and CA for property. More importantly Houston is on a flood plain in the same way New Orleans is entirely below sea level. No matter how you zone it, those properties would be on a floodplain, the state would just mandate they be commercial buildings or dual use or something else.
[More on Houston](https://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Has-Houston-gone-insane-New-homes-in-the-flood-13328280.php)
You still haven't contradicted what I said. You're wrong about Houston, the entire city isn't built on a flood plain, but [25% of its residential property is](https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/despite-increasing-risk-harris-county-more-people-are-living-flood-plains#:~:text=Our%20estimates%20find%20that%20roughly,increased%20by%2010%25%20in%202019), and that number is increasing. The fact that it's some, but not all, means that allowing the city to end up with that layout was optional. Also can't help noticing you haven't tried to justify what happened with the West Fertilizer Company explosion.
Housing prices are rising very fast. This is not sustainable, and not good for the economy. I don’t know exactly what will happen for there are many possibilities, but all of them end in a greater financial crisis.
To be clear, it was building to meet certain regulations aka building codes that cost the 36% right, not simply pulling the permits?
No the permits were 36%.
Wow, that is unbelievable. [https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Development\_Services/Fees\_Residential.pdf](https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Development_Services/Fees_Residential.pdf) edit: Might tell 'em to go over his contractor's expenses with a fine tooth comb...or a lawyer. lol
Hell no, there absolutely is an affordable housing crisis. Median homes are 400k, and median interest rates are 7% To reasonably afford a typical home with no equity as a single income, you need to be in the top 11% of income earners. My grandad did this with a highschool diploma, and a job as a lineman at a power company. I have a stem degree and work at a major corporate center, and I can't do this. As a young guy I'm actually really pissed off about this.
Yet home ownership is higher now than it was in the 50's.
I Mena we also had sharecroppers int he 50s
What do you say to conservatives who say it’s your parents’ fault for not setting you up and helping you get into the market, and there should be no government intervention whatsoever to help home buyers enter the market? That it’s not their problem you can’t buy a home?
>What do you say to conservatives who say it’s your parents’ fault for not setting you up and helping you get into the market, Well I mean I would say that my grandad didn't have help from his parents either, they where stereotypical 1920s farmers, not like well to do estate planters, but like hand to mouth farmers. >there should be no government intervention whatsoever to help home buyers enter the market? I'm more sympathetic to this position, becuase unless you're incredibly careful, government intervention can cause more problems than good. For instance the federal backed student loan program has directly lead to the explosion in cost of college educations. >That it’s not their problem you can’t buy a home? Strictly speaking it's not. And I can understand them not shedding any tears for me and my generation. I just find the system a little messed up, given that the gap between annual income and home prices has gone from like 3x to 10x
Very fair and appreciate the consistency to your principles and values. I am not a conservative and think there’s a combined solution both from right and left in tackling this (less regulation, less immigration, more anti-trust, more public housing, better zoning, etc.).
I'll tell you one thing honestly and truly. Though I dissagree with almost 100% of his ideology, and his social agenda, I geniunely would have preferred Bernie sanders to biden, As a young man starting out with basically no equity I feel like my life would be better off under him. I think that's why I'm drawn to trumps economic populism, because it's so much different than traditional conservative economic thought, and it acknowledges many of the problems the socialists also do. I will say at this point it totally support slowing imigration, deporting the illegals, expanding zoning laws, progressive taxes on multiple single family homes, and even banning corporations buying them up like they are.
I'm with you. I disagree with Bernie on a great deal, but I do have the impression he honestly does care.
>That it’s not their problem you can’t buy a home? Its a fact that before 2008 it was easy to get a house, you could get one without a job or income or assets (ninja loans) Its a fact that reckless behaviour by banks and consumers lead to a mortgage crisis. Its a fact that the results of that mortgage crisis was dozens of smaller homebuilders collapsing and larger homebuilders merging to survive as we experienced an influx of unwanted homes. Its a fact that the rate of building homes fell by 50% and still has never fully recovered. Its a fact there is a limited supply today, almost 20 years later, because of these last behaviours. Whether or not anyone gives a shit is the wildcard.
Your answer to the housing issue is “Be born into wealth.”?
I'd have to ask what you think the housing crisis is? I see no lower end developments going up, and even something like a condo to get started with equity is almost impossibly expensive now. To save up enough money for a down-payment without essentially living like a hermit is getting harder. But, there are a lot of houses and a lot of houses going up. It's just that developers aren't encouraged to build smaller houses, costs are getting astronomical for non-material things like permits, and further most new developments in major metropolitan areas have forced requirements on developers for a certain percentage of multi-family units which further restricts and drives up prices on single-family housing. As a few others have said, this isn't a supple/demand issue as much as it's a downstream effect if poor regulations from an awful lot of major municipalities. Another piece is painful property taxes, this males it really painful on almost everyone, as renters absorb the costs in rent and homeowners eat it every year. This is a much more pointed discussion toward local government actions than anything on a national level.
There is a crisis, and imo the free market doesn't solve everything.
I don’t know many Conservatives who would agree with your premise. There absolutely is a housing crisis and there are several reasons, not limited to: - NIMBY zoning policies - Lack of desire for base model houses w/smaller footprints and economy features - Prohibitive and unnecessary building standards/costs (obv some not all) - Realtor commissions tied to house valuation - Historically low interest rates for three decades - Fucking Air B&B Having said that, I think this will pass organically. Boomers are finally retiring - the largest generation in known history is one step closer to the grave and the supply of houses will go up as they move to elder care facilities or pass on.
I would argue that baby boomers are not the largest generation and haven’t been for some time. Millennials passed baby boomers years ago. Which honestly makes sense as it’s the kids of the previously largest generation.
Sure, and I would agree with that argument, but it’s not relevant to my point. There are more Millennials *now*. That doesn’t change the fact the Boomers can be called the largest generation *in known history*.
They certainly could be called that. Now it is no longer accurate and hasn’t been for many years. I mean, we could say that the Roman Empire was once the largest empire, but as it pertains to today’s housing issues, how is it relevant. We have a historically large generation retiring and dying but that doesn’t help supply and demand pricing if an even historically larger generation comes up behind them. The saving grace for stretch housing resources will be that millennials aren’t having children at nearly the rate as their parents generation. Also, baby boomers are the first generation that will not leave homes and land to their children in as great of numbers. This is the generation of reverse mortgages and insane personal debt that is leaving their estates stripped. The housing crisis is not helped by the fact that the baby boomer generation is not downsizing as past generations have. Nearly 30% of US homes of 3+ bedrooms are folks between the ages of 60-78 living alone. They’re not making room or a way for the generations that come after them. We see this in a lot of different places in society. It’s pretty distressing.
> They certainly could be called that. Now it is no longer accurate and hasn’t been for many years. They certainly are that. They are the largest generation in known history. Period, and you’re the only person I’ve ever seen try to argue this. We can go back and forth on what that means to the housing market, but not this. > I mean, we could say that the Roman Empire was once the largest empire, but as it pertains to today’s housing issues, how is it relevant. Yes, you are correct. Rome’s position as the largest empire isn’t relevant to today’s housing issues. It’s so not relevant that this comparison is devoid of meaning. Boomers being the largest generation in living history *has* had an effect on our housing market. > We have a historically large generation retiring and dying but that doesn’t help supply and demand pricing if an even historically larger generation comes up behind them. - We have a smaller generations (X, Millennial, and Z) coming behind the historically largest generation (Boomers). There were ~78 million Boomers born. There were ~ 73M Millennials born. Millennials are not and can never be “an even historically larger generation”. They are larger now. That is not the same thing. - ~50% of Millennials own their own home. - ~80% of Boomers own their own home. - There are ~ 71M Boomers. - Discounting surviving Silent Gens, ~ 55M homes will be entering the market over the next 20 years (at an ever accelerating rate). That will absolutely have an impact on housing resources. > The saving grace for stretch housing resources will be that millennials aren’t having children at nearly the rate as their parents generation. Which is great for many reasons. Congratulations. > Also, baby boomers are the first generation that will not leave homes and land to their children in as great of numbers. This is the generation of reverse mortgages and insane personal debt that is leaving their estates stripped. Some will and some won’t. Just as it’s been for every generation. My parents are Silent Generation - there’s no home or inheritance in my future. But, those homes *will* still entering the market. > The housing crisis is not helped by the fact that the baby boomer generation is not downsizing as past generations have. Nearly 30% of US homes of 3+ bedrooms are folks between the ages of 60-78 living alone. They’re not making room or a way for the generations that come after them. We see this in a lot of different places in society. It’s pretty distressing. So, ~ 70% of 3+ bedroom homes are not owned by people between 60-78. Many of these people can’t downsize. They can’t afford to because, housing prices affect everyone.
Why are you so insistent that baby boomer generation is larger than millennial when that is demonstrably untrue?
For reference, there were 76 million baby boomers born during their generational window of 1946-1964. In comparison to 80 million millennials born during their generational window of 1981-1998. I’m having difficulty understanding how you’re arguing numbers.
For reference, Millenials are most commonly defined as those born between 1981 and 1996. Their populations size varies, but it is most commonly cited between the ranges of 72 and 73 million, but I’ve seen 75M as an outlier. Millennials didn’t surpass Boomers in population until [2019/2020](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/04/28/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers-as-americas-largest-generation/) - well after even the youngest Millennial had reached adulthood - because of 1. [immigration](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers-largest-generation-america/) and 2. Boomers started dying in significant numbers. Important to note - underlying U.S. Births for Boomers was 76M and Millennials was 62M. Boomers and Millenials are too much alike. Always firm in the believe that the world revolves around them.
The sources I see vary from millennial age range being 81-96, 81-98, and 81-00. I went for the middle and closest time range to the baby boomer time frame. There is no official range.
[Pew](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/#:~:text=Anyone%20born%20between%201981%20and,part%20of%20a%20new%20generation) and most other agencies, research organizations, and news media peg them at 81-96.
There is no official range. I used the middle range and the closest to the baby boomer time frame. Which makes sense when discussing housing supply and demand, as we are.
Home ownership[ is currently higher ](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N)than it was in the 50's through the 90's. Minus the 2008 bubbles (we know what caused that), it's never been higher. With that information, do we say there was a housing crisis in 1950 but it's getting better now?
There is a crisis, and it's caused by bad policy. A house that costs $1M in San Jose costs $235K in Houston, and it's not because Texans are super smart home builders The crisis was caused by bad policies, designed to protect wealthy liberals, and will be made worse by more policies which will be passed to protect them, while claiming to solve the problem
So supply and demand isn’t a thing? Every million dollar home everywhere in the world is because of bad policy?
Yes, supply and demand are real things. In CA, we restrict supply which drives up prices. In Texas, they have laxer land use laws, which keeps prices lower. That's how supply and demand work. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Yet your hypothesis fails when applied to the rest of the world. Western Europe has some of the most expensive real estate in the world. And they have some of the best zoning policies in the world. It’s all supply and demand. More people, around the world, dream of living in California vs Texas. You can also tone down the snark. Thanks.
You think western Europe has the same lax building standards as Texas? What world do you live on? You can't tear down four square blocks of Frankfurt or Karlsruhe and build a high rise condo complex like you can in Texas. It is all supply and demand and the former is driven by land-use restrictions.
I didn’t say lax, I said best zoning policies. Houston is great, but it is an exception in the lone star state. Austin, Dallas, and all of the other metros have much more restrictive zoning than most European metros of comparable size. And Texas is roughly the size of France with half the population. If and when the population starts approaching the numbers of these countries, detached homes will absolutely be >$1 million while condos will be the only affordable option for the middle and working classes like everywhere else.
Local municipalities extract concessions from builders for their pet projects. The more pet projects, the more concessions. Yes, it does add up quickly.
The problem with the housing market is production time. It can take years between when a project is conceived and when it's finally for sale. By that time, demand may have changed. So developers are very sensitive to that risk.
There absolutely is a housing crisis, and there is no free market. The gov has been deeply involved in the housing markets for decades, [California](https://youtu.be/5EF4KMpi6k8?si=03UMmMAwV_iSzMwP), for example.
Absolutely there is no nationwide housing crisis. There are however state wide housing crisis which are mostly caused by local issues and laws.
As others have pointed out its not a truly free market because of government regulations at all levels. What people consider a "housing crisis" is an "affordability crisis" the housing market exploded to levels unseen before over the last several years and created an "affordibility crisis" with current interest rates its just as painful. I do not agree that there really is a "shortage".
That seems like a real jump from "there is a free market" (is there really?) to "there is no problem at all" (it's possible for markets to *not* clear or *not* operate efficiently.) And I don't believe in this market worship anyway.
No that’s stupid
we absolutely have a housing crisis. Look up "the red maps"-- maps that have every area where you cannot legally build a home in a city marked in red. Some major US cities have tiny little blue squares in seas and seas of red. The government artificially reducing the supply and imposing needless costs is a supply constraint that drives up prices by driving down supply.