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 -
I'm wondering what percentage of Boomers had bought before the rates passed, say, 10%. The last year below that was 1978.
Raw birth numbers for the Boomers are here. By my count, then, about 31M Boomers had turned 25 by 1978. That's on par with the number who'd reach that age between '79 and '85. Something like half of the Boomers would have been buying their first houses at 7 to 10%, not 12 to 15%! More if they were actually making the purchase younger. I could see that making a big difference in the generation's wealth.
Yeah, I was thinking the volatility of the post-2008 period might have disincentivized new buyers. It certainly changed the way house speculation was managed. But I'm not really attached to the idea.
This is where I'd like to see you include more data, because it feels like you're falling back on the stereotype. There's a tidy narrative where those rootless millennials lack discipline, but I'm not sure it holds up. Not compared to the effects of credential inflation, of the transition to a service economy, or these housing statistics. Are spending habits really more impactful than what might be a 20% increase in house payments?
My bad. I was trying to refer to urbanization rather than just true urban centers. The suburban metroplexes are more important than ever, and I don't know what fraction of them are reporting things like your New York examples.
No, I appreciate why you used the median. It's certainly more stable than the mean for what you're trying to show. But it doesn't solve the subgroup problem, because in theory, up to 50% of your population could be experiencing something very different. There's no way that happens in a vacuum, of course, but how big of a percentage is doing the complaining? More than half of the country is urbanized, so a lot of people have opportunities to witness the metro effects on housing. Even if they don't suffer from it personally, that's liable to shape a narrative.
More options
Context Copy link