site banner

How good the boomers had it

nfinf.substack.com

Inspired by some of the conversations we had here about the experiences of previous generations (especially with /u/the_nybbler, and yes, I know you're not a boomer), I wrote up a post that challenges a common narrative of how good the boomers had, and how screwed the millennials are. Main point is that the houses were not that much cheaper relative to now, and the interests rates were murderous. Enjoy!

(I'm a regular poster here, but I wanted to separate the identities for opsec purposes).

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You make a good point about the averages, but one salient thing you leave out is that the price gains on housing in the most productive part of the country has far outstripped the income growth there. If you're a (younger) millennial who wants to move to a productive area you have probably missed the boat - 2018 was still a decent time to buy in these areas (especially with the phenomenal interest rates) but the tail end of the millennials had just graduated college around then. It seems... counterproductive for the most productive parts of the country to have the most unaffordable housing.

I do talk about it a little, in the "Perceptions" section:

Metro concentration: we focused on medians here, but a lot of griping online comes from the extremely-online group which happens to live at high rates in a bunch of very attractive metro areas, like NYC, SFBA, or DC. In these metros, the housing prices did indeed skyrocket, and it is much less affordable than those same places were to boomers.

The benefit of focusing on medians is that it allows you to say that relatively few people actually live in those metros (compared to the entire country), so while this is huge problem for a very loud, but small group, it's not the experience of a typical millennial.

It seems... counterproductive for the most productive parts of the country to have the most unaffordable housing.

Fully agreed.