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).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Very interesting. I wonder if a lot of the griping (in the US at least) is also influenced by the state the griper lives in. My understanding is that some states (e.g. California) have overly restrictive planning laws that push up house prices, while others (e.g. Texas) have more liberal laws that allow more housebuilding.
Low Texan house prices bring down the national average, while high Californian house prices still price out millennials who want to stay in their home state.
Google says the average house is Texas costs around $300,000 while the average house in California costs $765,000, which seems to bear this out.
If there was ever a place which would have a distorted average house price, it’d be California.
As MAM says, Texas’s tax regime makes things a little weird. We don’t do state income tax, but property taxes are higher.
Sprawl is also easier here due to flat terrain. An hour on I-35 will get you further out than that hour on the 405. We have a lower risk of natural disasters. So there are other factors which make building easier.
More options
Context Copy link
The housing prices are due to many more factors including higher Texas property taxes (as a percentage) and more desirable climate in California. So there are factors going both ways.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link