Buying a family-sized home with three or more bedrooms used to be manageable for young people with children. But with home prices climbing faster than wages, mortgage rates still close to 23-year highs and a shortage of homes nationwide, many Millennials with kids can’t afford it. And Gen Z adults with kids? Even harder.
Meanwhile, Baby Boomers are staying in their larger homes for longer, preferring to age in place and stay active in a neighborhood that’s familiar to them. And even if they sold, where would they go? There is a shortage of smaller homes in those neighborhoods.
As a result, empty-nest Baby Boomers own 28% of large homes — and Milliennials with kids own just 14%, according to a Redfin analysis released Tuesday. Gen Z families own just 0.3% of homes with three bedrooms or more.
My parents live in Texas and I live in WA. They say they wish they could afford to live closer to me, but based on their actions it seems like they value having a big piece of real estate more than they value being close to me.
Or maybe they’re happy living where they’ve lived for so long, in a big comfortable property, rather than uproot everything they’ve known to live close to you with no guarantee that you’ll visit regularly and not move again for another job.
Or maybe I know the situation better than you.
They haven’t lived in their house very long, they have virtually no community connections there, they don’t like it much, and it’s pretty obvious that I’m not planning another cross country move ever.
But go off.
Did they move away from you or did you move away from them?
What difference does that make? I have just as much right to choose where I live as they do to choose where they live.
This isn’t the ‘Boomers’ fault. It’s large corporate property portfolios vacuuming up houses and land to take in the lovely extortion… uh…‘rent’ monies.
They can’t sell. Their adult children have to live with them since they can’t afford anything else.
Not sure how common this is nationally, but around here it’s also common for the older generation to maintain two properties a “home” in the city/metro area near their kids or grandkids and a “cabin” which is literally a second home somewhere else.
I think it’d be great to give up the home in the metro and downsize to a condo or apartment, but that’s just me.
Good luck finding a condo. Plus all the fees of moving and taxes.
Ok so we’re trying to blame boomers now for Airbnb now? Cuz there’s more than enough NEW housing that was turned into Airbnb by gobbling firms.
Brian Joseph Chesky (born August 29, 1981) is an American businessman and industrial designer and the co-founder and CEO of Airbnb. Chesky is the 249th richest person in the world according to Forbes, with a net worth of $8.6 billion, mostly due to his ownership of 76 million shares of Airbnb.
Where did Brian Chesky start Airbnb?
San Francisco Airbnb. In October 2007, the Industrial Designers Society of America was hosting a conference in San Francisco and all hotel rooms were booked. The pair could not afford rent for the month and decided to rent their apartment for money.
You can safely leave the boomers out of that conversation for how the unchecked system was actually broken by a millennial.
Airbnb impact pales in comparison to SFR and B2R. And guess what generation is driving those industries.
Go away troll.
I wrote out a very angry reply, but as often happens, as I cooled down and reflected, it was 100% the result of this enormously clickbait title, not the article itself.
The article itself DOES mention the mortgage rates, and it DOES acknowledge that Boomers might be willing to move out (in direct contradiction to its own title) but cannot bc of a shortage of affordable smaller homes, the same as everyone else.
In short, Boomers are trapped too - again it’s not that they “won’t” so much as they “can’t” - even if sitting better in a home that they (hopefully) own rather than having to rent.
There is simply no excuse for such a rage-baiting, purposefully combative title.:-( Maybe we need to start using AI to generate new titles to replace those profit-mongering ones? :-)
I’m here to say thank you for keeping your cool on the internet despite the clickbait and somewhat ragebait headline.
This definitely helps make the Fediverse a nicer place.
Thank you for the thanks, and sorry that someone is downvoting you even for saying that much. At this point I think I’ll start wearing my downvotes as a matter of pride
just like on ole Reddit. I would very much like it if the Fediverse would be cleaner and nicer than where we left, so indeed that starts with myself.:-)
One of the rules of this community is you must use the same title for your post as the news article title.
So now we have quite a few clickbait & ragebait titles, because that’s what the corps are doing. Pretty dumb rule, IMO.
Rules can change, but mainly I mean that we need to be the change we want to see in the world. e.g. maybe not even allow articles labeled as “news” that are meant only to distract our attention away from corporations’ profit margins, being written by conservative right-wing propaganda arms of the media such as [checks notes] “CNN”. Well… shit.
Yes, some kind of minimum standard would be good.
On piefed.social there are over 3000 domains that cannot be linked to, including all the alt-right propaganda ones. Brietbart, Russia Today, etc. I wouldn’t go as far as including CNN in that list though.
To clarify: I was being mostly tongue-in-cheek on that part. Most of the time you do not associate “CNN” with “right-wing propaganda”, as while it may not be entirely unbiased it does not lie so far on the spectrum as to deserve that label of “propaganda”. Or at least it has not been that way in the past?
The cussing at the end though was to indicate my absolute surprise at finding that this article is now contributing towards its inching closer to earning that distinction though. Or at least the title of this article accomplishes that effect, even though the content itself does not. Also, I noticed that this is not an “opinion” piece, nor at the end do they have a disclaimer that the views of the author may not necessarily reflect that of the journal - so this seems fully supported by the editorial staff at CNN Business?
Fwiw, I wonder if they even care which political direction it pushes people towards - so long as it makes people angry, their profits increase by people clicking on it?
Ofc I agree that CNN Business is not as far advanced along the propaganda spectrum as those others you listed (in those, the content itself would be biased as well)… but neither is CNN Business unbiased either, apparently. Just look at how many incendiary words & phrases are used - they “won’t part” (like a toddler holding a toy?), the direct interpretation that “that’s a problem”, the “think of the children” tactic, not calling them “Generation Baby Boomer” or some such but the almost pejorative these days “Boomers”, and using right out of the gate as almost a verb like BOOM those old farts did another thing again, now click to find out why you should be angry!? (which itself, like propaganda tends to do, implies the never-ending NOW that is all that is assumed to ever matter to the reader, not “this is happening lately” or “there is a trend showing up recently”, but “[THEY] WON’T PART”, as if that stage will continue forever without some inertia-stopping force to stop this “problem for young families” - a force that will demand ACTION? which btw is what drives the urge to click the article, b/c otherwise mere information delivery could allow someone to read the title and move on with their lives, but no, this article must be CLICKED, IMMEDIATELY!) Later, the article itself softens this heavy pushing of phrases considerably - e.g. note the switch inside to now “Baby Boomers”, and putting transition words in front of it to shift the focus away from them and more on the nature of the underlying transitioning effect itself (e.g. “Meanwhile, Baby Boomers…”, as in a process that is currently underway, over the course of some period of time, rather than the “BOOMERS WON’T PART” in more active, and urgent, voice).
So… from the title alone, it sure looks an awful lot like propaganda to me? I hope to see less of this from CNN Business in the future, but if instead I see more then I will have to update my view on where they stand on that spectrum. Again, at least in reference to their titles as separate from the actual article content.
Thank you for this chance to vent btw, and your perspective does help clarify matters.:-)
Yes, great analysis.
Someone on fedi somewhere recently said “if the article makes you scared or angry, you’re probably being manipulated”.
It sounds like a fantastic rule of thumb. To be fair, it is REALLY hard to make use of language in a way that engenders zero emotional response on behalf of the recipient - and why would you want to even?
Unfortunately, when that emotional response later turns into disappointment after learning that it was fake, you develop a pattern of distrusting whomever it was that made you feel that way. Which at this point is almost EVERY major corporation, especially the formerly “news” ones?!
e.g., I recall feeling sick upon learning that Donald Trump had sex with a 14-year-old (at the time) girl. Even though I was being, um… “encouraged” to feel that way… I do not regret that emotion, nor distrust who sold me that story, to the extent that those facts are accurate? (based on her own testimony, which she said she was willing to swear to in a court of law, and she provided details that supposedly were corroborated, at least enough to place her at one of those parties, yes run by Epstein, where that occurred - e.g. there was an actual photo of her + DT standing together iirc; which I note that even if she faked a portion of the story, the news media source itself seems like they had done their due diligence at that point)
Whereas for the OP article I feel far more “betrayed”, by its title, seeking to place blame solely onto baby boomers who are stuck in their giant empty homes due to the mortgage rates & housing availability situation - which they themselves may not feel is optimal (higher costs of heating / cooling for one) - rather than on the real sources that are causing the actual “problems” that the title alluded to. But live & learn - and from now on I will know to heavily distrust any article coming forth from CNN, which I find so incredibly sad, but like the housing crisis itself, is simply the unfortunate truth nowadays:-(.
Fortunately it’s not quite as bad as Brietbart, at least not yet…:-(
Yeah, it’s tricky. There is a point where a headline becomes deceiving and it’s very hard to pinpoint where that is. I like your AI idea and will do some experiments along those lines.
Well gee it’s almost like after decades of being told they should treat houses as investments to be collected instead of sold, they listened.
The problem isn’t boomers. It’s people buying more than they need during a crisis.
Don’t let them make you forget that 44 percent of homes were bought by corporations in 2023. In cash, above asking, no inspection.
I agree with most of what you said but that 44% number is wildly wrong. Article about it
Also, anecdotally, I’ve gone through a couple of houses in hot markets the last 5 years (had to move for work) as both buyer and seller. The vast majority of people looking weren’t corporate or institutions. Most were couples looking for a place to live. Cash buyers above asking are a real thing though and they suuuuuuuck for the poors like myself.Your right, I shouldn’t take my news from Medium headlines. So here’s the actual study results from Business Insider.
However the Medium article wasn’t wrong. When you have reporting from NYT to CNBC agreeing, and a glorified industry blog splitting hairs as a defense then it’s pretty clear what the situation is.
“ When combining closings between both larger, private equity and smaller, independent operations, investors accounted for 44% of the purchases of flips during the third quarter”
That figure is talking about only flipped (i.e. remodeled) houses bought in a specific quarter, October 2022. Most people (myself included) can’t afford freshly remodeled homes and brand new cars.
That figure also lumps small landlords together with big investors which really isn’t the same thing in my opinion but some people around here think that all landlords are evil so that’s somewhat subjective I guess.Institutional investors “purchased 25% of the homes flipped” “as soaring mortgage rates push traditional buyers to the sidelines,”
That still sucks but it’s not 44% of all homes being bought by big corporations throughout 2023.
Here’s a recent Business Insider article that goes in depth on who’s been buying houses over time
Idgaf if they own 10 houses or 10,000. They’re hoarding houses and people are being hurt by it. It needs to stop.
So no rental properties at all? You either buy or you’re homeless? That doesn’t sound great to me. Owning is a lot of work, risk and commitment. If anything goes wrong, you better have thousands of dollars ready to dump into getting your roof fixed or your plumbing fixed or whatever. If you decide you want to go to a different school or accept a better job offer in another city, you’re probably gonna lose tens of thousands of dollars to the real estate agents when you sell. It’s not the right choice for a lot of people.
I’ve lived mostly in houses owned by landlords with less than ten properties and they were all pretty cool for the most part. Way better landlords than apartment complexes or property management companies. The biggest annoyance was surprise visits by them early on the weekend to plant flowers/bushes in the front yard, water the tree, replace edging, typical homeowner crap like that. I guess worse than that, a couple of times their situation changed and they decided to move back into the house, so they didn’t renew our lease and we had to move out. That kinda sucked but it’s their house, if they want to live in it and your lease is up, that’s the way contracts go.
All that said, property management companies and large landlords can get fucked. Regardless of housing cost, they’ve always been scumbags to deal with.
We could do market rate non profit apartment buildings. But yeah other than that it needs to go die in a fire. We are living in a crisis of our own making.
Boomers should have housing. And we shouldn’t ignore the idiosyncratic attachments that people develop to their homes. Saying “the boomers need to move so I can have a home” is no different than saying “that people group needs to move so my people group has living space.”
We can all have homes. The problem is that the corporations are incentivized to buy residential property and rent it to us. Fuck them.
And many cities make it illegal to build smaller housing units in the areas that older people who own the larger houses live.
Around me there are strata neighborhoods (HOA) with 3 bedroom houses with restrictions saying you have to be 55+ years of age to live there. There’s no reason other than it makes the housing cheap to purchase for older folks. Younger folk get screwed yet again. There’s no reason a 3+ bedroom house should be reserved for older people.
I could understand it if there were handicap accessible bathrooms and whatnot but they are just regular homes. Also many luxury condos with the same restrictions.
There is no limit to the amount of housing we can build. Investment in housing is good for everyone.
Investing in new construction and ‘investing’ in hoarding existing real estate are not the same thing.
Almost no one builds their own house.
We just need more of them, not some random group to get fucked out of their housing. Bleed the 1%
Not sure how more boomers would help…
I feel like most of the thumbnails I see for news articles are AI generated now.
This post is a load of horse shit.
The reason housing prices are out of control is because investment firms are gobbling them up with cash, yet you’re blaming it on boomers staying in their homes.
Boomers are staying in their homes BECAUSE the housing market is out of control. Stop blaming older people and start blaming Wall Street.
Exactly. Where will they move to? Most older people want to stay in the neighborhood that they grew up in. It’s not like an 80 year old will be selling their house in suburban Long Island to find a cheap room in rural Alaska.
This point is literally in the article, almost word for word, and it’s being upvoted as a defense of them against this article that’s allegedly trying to blame them.
Fucking hell, it never ceases to amaze me that people will be so up in arms against something they didn’t even bother to read.
And it’s not like new houses haven’t been built since grandpa bought his house.
And it’s not like there isn’t people benefitting now on a housing shortage caused by Airbnb buying up all that new housing.
Blaming boomers for corrupt Airbnb for this is a desperate reach.
Also blame shit like Silicon Valley for coming up with these new things like Airbnb and not putting it through a proper checkpoint on how it impacts the world. Like surely that could have had some foresight on the housing shortage it was going to cost the moment people got dollar signs in their eyes.
Why should they have to move? What is this unwritten law that says after 30 years you’re required to sell your family home to someone younger? I get that the baby boomer generation has fucked up a lot, but I don’t see why anyone should have to silently pack their belongings and shuffle off to a nursing home just because Junior wants his first big boy house…
I agree, but it sure would be nice if boomers did something good for once.
They will eventually (though only once). It’s one of two certainties in life and the other is taxes.
Gee, boomers are being selfish! Who would have guessed?
Corporations and foreign countries are buying up real estate like crazy and OP wants to blame retired people? STFU.
Boomers shouldn’t have to part with their homes. They, too, need a place to live.
The issue is not Boomers owning the house they live in and refusing to leave it (even if it might be larger than they require) The issue is in particularly large corporations owning thousands of properties and taking them away from the housing market.
We should tear them from their homes and send them back where they came from.
