In the US, the gap between Black and White Homeownership is widening with each generation [OC]diox8tony t1_j9shrtu wrote
Reply to comment by chicagotim1 in In the US, the gap between Black and White Homeownership is widening with each generation [OC] by Apartment_List
50% of millennial 30 year olds own homes? Doubt it
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9t0pub wrote
Only if you consume too much reddit.
Homeownership is higher than it was decades ago when it was supposedly easier to by a home https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N.
genesiss23 t1_j9varan wrote
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9vbruh wrote
Great link! I suppose it isn't surprising. Loose interpretation is that anyone with a pulse can buy a home in rural Kentucky but California/Oregon not so much.
Centrismo t1_j9vebfj wrote
How are you getting home ownership rate for millennials out of that data?
This link is much more relevant
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9vi31k wrote
Overall rates have improved since the 1960s (your chart only shows 1980s). Millennials also include those 35-40. If you just half your own chart for <35 and 35-40, that sure looks to be around 50% to me from eyeballing it.
Centrismo t1_j9vidlm wrote
Im not disagreeing, just pointing out your conclusion doesn’t follow from the data you provided. Millenial home ownership is just shy of 50% right now.
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9vjx02 wrote
just shy of 50% right now.
I think you're being slightly pedantic here. Most people round up on numbers over 5.
Centrismo t1_j9vkwrq wrote
Im being confusing I guess. The chart you originally provided as evidence that millennial home ownership is increasing over time did not actually prove that millennial home ownership has been increasing. The reality is that it has been increasing, we agree on that.
However if home ownership increased disproportionately amongst boomers relative to millennials it would skew the data you linked to show overall ownership increasing while ownership amongst millennials could be decreasing. You can only reach the conclusion you did if the data is normalized such that home ownership rates for specific age groups is compared at the point in time when each group was the same age.
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9vlspm wrote
You already admitted that it is just shy of 50%. I think you're just trying to argue at this point.
Centrismo t1_j9vm3wx wrote
You are missing my point. I agree that 50% of millennials own homes.
I am trying to say that the data you provided does not prove that. You got the right answer doing the wrong thing basically.
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9vmcs6 wrote
> I am trying to say that the data you provided does not prove that.
Where in my original argument did I claim that? Did you stop to consider that my point wasn't to directly address the millennial portion of the argument and instead point to overall ownership in the U.S. (which is arguably more important)?
Again, you're being needlessly pedantic.
Centrismo t1_j9vn70s wrote
You should reread the comment chain from the top down then. Your comment absolutely implied that millennial ownership was increasing. Overall ownership includes millennials does it not?
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9vtl1i wrote
I made two separate sentences clearly delineated by a new line.... How that eludes you is beyond me.
What I say in this line is intended to be distinct from the one above.
Centrismo t1_j9vytyv wrote
If being obtuse and calling me pedantic makes you feel like a winner then I'm happy for you.
This conversation is boring now though.
Glad we could devolve so quickly to insulting each other.
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9vz9up wrote
I'm not trying to be rude, but my guy you're literally being pedantic over the most insanely minor details. As I said, you're just trying to argue. Rather than trying to recognize my point, you're picking at something incredibly minor.
Centrismo t1_j9w60qo wrote
Its only pedantic if the detail is irrelevant. Im trying to show you that that detail completely undermines the point you’re trying to make. Im not arguing against your point at all, I agree with you. Im saying the way you justified that point was with insufficient data. If you cant see why the chart I provided makes your point better than the chart you provided then this is a waste of time.
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9w82bv wrote
>Its only pedantic if the detail is irrelevant.
... being pedantic is basically brooding over minor relevant details.
I completely agree that the chart you provided directly addresses the first portion of my comment I made better than the comment I provided.
What I am trying to point out to you is that my second line of commentary was addressing my broad concern regarding reddit perceptions regarding homeownership, rather than for homeownership for millennials specifically. Even a slightly charitable interpretation would recognize that once pointed out. I've pointed out that I made two separate statements that should be evaluated as such multiple times. You refuse to view it from this perspective. Look at how this comment (and my others) are structured. This is a comment section, not a peer reviewed paper. Some generous parsing and interpretation are generally required.
It doesn't take a stretch of imagination to figure out that redditors seem to perceive home ownership is out of reach for most people. I was attempting to point out that perception isn't grounded in reality.
Centrismo t1_j9wcwyc wrote
Sorry for being dismissive and combative. The more I’m researching the less clear the picture appears to be. Take another look at your original chart.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
Notice “The homeownership rate is the proportion of households that is owner-occupied.” The homeownership rate doesn’t actually tell us much about per capita home ownership, just the rental rate for houses. The link I provided used the same homeownership metric.
Im struggling to find the actual number of people who live in a house they own, but we can extrapolate from the homelessness rate and apartment rental rate. This article seems like a good summary:
Compare those rental numbers to the total homeless population:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/555795/estimated-number-of-homeless-people-in-the-us/
Seems like the per capita number of homeowners is declining. Further, considering wages aren’t keeping up with inflation and housing cost increases are outpacing inflation this paints a picture that home ownership is becoming less accessible.
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9wfewj wrote
If you realllly want to argue this, I'm happy to do so. You're cherry picking (aka intentionally arguing). Given your passion (which I admire), I suspect you seem to believe the U.S. is uniquely bad for first-world countries. I strongly recommend that you look at homelessness rates (which you raised as an issue) for the U.S. against other developed countries. You'll find that the U.S. actually performs better than some peer countries (again, despite reddit opinions).
Homelessness (per 10K)
UK - 54.4
Australia - 49.1
Sweden - 36
US - 17.5
Denmark - 11
Iceland - 10
In the U.S. homelessness rates correlate almost perfectly with drug usage rates. I'm not trying to knock people who use drugs, but you can't exactly ignore "other factors" when they don't confirm your perceptions.
You seem (forgive me here) very invested in the idea where US = bad without sufficient evidence. This is a very common reddit perspective.
Centrismo t1_j9whc0y wrote
I think you can demonstrate that homeownership is becoming less accessible over time.
I don’t think the america=bad trope is valid though.
From my perspective I think a decline in home ownership is the expected and inevitable result of increasing urbanization and the inherent logistical challenges of building high population density cities. Its a trend that we can observe in most if not all countries. Thats not necessarily bad, its just a societal transition from the suburban to urban.
The homeless rate has been declining, which indicates that the housing situation is improving. However when compared to the increase in rental rates for apartments and the relatively stagnant rental rates for houses we can only say that the number of housed individuals is increasing, we cannot say the number of home owners is increasing.
The links I provided above show the per capita rate of home ownership is declining overtime while the per capita rate of renters is increasing, at least over the last 20 years. Personally I think we should try to reverse this trend, but it may not be logistically possible at our population level.
My general impression is that we are heading toward an era where the majority of people are renters and I think we can expect a further class divide to emerge between renters and owners. This is not unique to America, but rather a consequence of the global trend toward high density urban development and exacerbated by the neoliberal economic policies that have been dominant since the 80s that have caused wages to decouple from the inflation rate.
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9wi7nr wrote
I think you can demonstrate that homeownership is becoming less accessible over time.
... My original comment that seemed to cause you so much heartburn literally showed homeownership rates have increased since the 60s. Take the opinions out of the equation...
Aside from that, I show you the U.S. is better regarding homelessness compared with supposedly "better" countries and you immediately shift the goal post...
>My general impression is that we are heading toward an era where the
majority of people are renters and I think we can expect a further class
divide to emerge between renters and owners.
How can you possibly arrive at that conclusion when your initial complaint was over my source which showed that homeownership rates have actually increased since the 1960s....
You're a hammer in search of nails.
Centrismo t1_j9wkyhi wrote
I guess you didn’t look at your original source again like I asked. It does not track the number of people who own homes. That chart tracked the “homeownership rate” which is specifically the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner of the home.
Hypothetically If you have 100 people and 50 of them live in a house, of those 50 lets say 25 own the home and 25 rent the home, then the per capita rate of people that own homes would be 25% while the “homeownership rate” as defined by your source would be 50%.
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9wlmi4 wrote
Oh my gosh. My guy... you're being needlessly pedantic here. I showed you **RATES** by country. Do you understand what that means?
I've taught undergrads, grads, doctoral students for over a decade and, to be honest, you're possibly the most stubborn person I've encountered in my life.
You do you. Good luck. You win! You're the best ever. Whatever.
[deleted] t1_j9wn31x wrote
[deleted]
Centrismo t1_j9wmmla wrote
Please address the previous comment. You do see how the home ownership rate does not track the total number of people who own a home right? Im worried that a teacher cant interpret the sources they are providing correctly. If we interpret your source the way that you are it implies that there are more homeowners in the US than there are homes. You read the chart wrong.
What it actually says is that out of all the homes in the US polled by the census X percent of them were occupied by the home owner. That is not the same thing as X percent of all people in the country own a home. The homeownership rate can increase while the per capita rate of home ownership decreases.
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9wq679 wrote
... what do you think "rate" means...
Centrismo t1_j9wqidh wrote
Please stop assuming Im an idiot, I know what rate means. The “home ownership rate”, As Defined By Your Source, measures the percent of homes that are owned by one of the occupants. It does not measure the percent of the population that owns a home.
Do I need to screen cap the part of your source’s notes that specifies that for you or do you genuinely not understand why those two measures are different?
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9xs2pw wrote
You've spent over a dozen comments arguing a point I was right about and a second point you misinterpreted. I think we can stop here.
Centrismo t1_j9xu5rp wrote
You’re not qualified to be a teacher if that’s truly what you’re taking away from this exchange. Im genuinely floored you can’t understand me, I’ve made it so clear.
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9xuk2g wrote
I have a Ph.D. and publish. According to accreditation standards, I'm pretty sure I'm good to go in terms of qualification.
jdjdthrow t1_j9ygvn5 wrote
That's measuring the proportion of households that are owner-occupied, not the proportion of people that own their own home.
If a 30-year old still lives with his parents, he's not even included in the data-- he's part of a single household with his parents. Multi-generational living arrangements have increased substantially over the decades...
It's a pretty hard row to hoe to deny that housing costs have outstripped income gains for the last xx years. On a nationwide basis, it's indisputable.
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9yhz1s wrote
It's effectively the same thing. Hence why that measure is used. It matches perfectly with 1 - rental rates.
I don't dispute that housing costs have outstripped income gains. However, when you look at the drivers of that, homes are also getting larger and more modern (read: expensive to build). Asbestos was in basically all old homes because it was dirt cheap. Same with shag carpets. Same with lead in paint, etc.
Edit: Home sizes more than doubled from 1960 to 2010 https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html
jdjdthrow t1_j9ytzpf wrote
>homes are also getting larger and more modern
Okay, but we're talking about poor young people. The ones not buying homes. They're living with family or in apartments with roommates (as opposed to getting married).
DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9yv91i wrote
>Okay, but we're talking about poor young people.
Um, since when? We were talking about millennials.
44_WeLoveYou t1_j9tlpfc wrote
a steady diet of reddit doom and gloom will warp your prespective.
Every third post on here is about someone's depression, mental health issue, self diagnosed physical ailment, being a moderator, unwillingness to hold a job, etc... its no wonder that this segment of the population might not be out there buying houses.
DIYThrowaway01 t1_j9tm3zi wrote
Seriously Reddit is probably the most depressing cesspool on earth but here I am - an addict for over a decade.
[deleted] t1_j9tokk2 wrote
[removed]
44_WeLoveYou t1_j9tts81 wrote
I'm just here for the Schadenfreude
420everytime t1_j9tccj2 wrote
Doesn’t this say 50% of white millennial 30 year olds own homes?
In the very white town in Georgia that I grew up in, probably more than 50% of 30 year olds own homes.
Granted, you can get a nice home in that town for under $150k, but generally speaking homes are much cheaper in small town white America than in more diverse cities.
lileebean t1_j9tnoq9 wrote
Yeah I live in rural MN. My husband and I are in our mid-30s, and we've owned a home since our mid-20s. 5 bed, 3 bath house with a big yard. Our mortgage is less than 900 a month. I understand you can't rent an apartment for that in a big city...which is why we don't live there?
cheeze_whiz_shampoo t1_j9u0uq0 wrote
I have a friend in rural minnesota (town less than 400 people) and a few years ago he bought a nice 3 bedroom home that was dated but very well taken care of. Price? 55k, haha.
King-Of-Rats t1_j9tgt1y wrote
Eh, that seems right to me.
If you’ve only lived in large cities your entire life then… yeah, every house you see is going to be like $400,000.
A lot of America just doesn’t live in those cities and never has. If you are living in Idaho or Montana there are a lot of places where you can still get a house pretty comfortably with some degree of dual income (or just one decent job).
RSomnambulist t1_j9tla1g wrote
83% of Americans are living in urban areas, so uh, what?
King-Of-Rats t1_j9u2g64 wrote
well, 1, that’s nearly 20% of people able to afford a home much more easily. And 2. Please look at the definition of urban under whatever source you’re getting that figure from and relay it to me
RSomnambulist t1_j9u7cnd wrote
King-Of-Rats t1_j9u7l2v wrote
Are you dumb or something. I asked for how your source (and in this case, your sources source) defines “urban populations”.
RSomnambulist t1_j9v92kn wrote
I'm not going to read it for you. You asked for the source. There you go.
King-Of-Rats t1_j9vdsm2 wrote
No I didn’t you fucking idiot lmao. I asked how they defined “urban“ within your source and you’re too brain dead to both comprehend me and also to know that your source is referencing yet another one - which you haven’t read.
​
Youre a moron who just googled for the fastest article they could get to support your point without having any clue what you’re talking about. The world is worse for you being on it. May god have mercy on your parents for they must live with the guilt of your existence
InspectorG-007 t1_j9topls wrote
Hence the migration pattern the last couple years with people leaving the cities.
Cities are too expensive regardless of race.
RSomnambulist t1_j9tz9n3 wrote
The 2050 figure is 89%. I don't see people moving out of cities, just into smaller, cheaper ones. I'd be willing to bet that the result of that will be the urbanization of more almost-suburban areas in the future--more cities, rather than people living outside of one.
InspectorG-007 t1_j9u4zpr wrote
Possibly. Small Modular Reactors and Automated delivery systems could offset that.
Cost will be a limiting factor. Cities get exponentially more expensive as they build 'upwards' not just in dollar terms but also resource.
RSomnambulist t1_j9u73f7 wrote
I think a lot of this depends on if we ever actually get decent public transport like more trains.
InspectorG-007 t1_j9u7k7q wrote
In the 15 minute cities, sure. But out beyond?
Very unrealistic. How many billions will it cost City A with population 7,000 to City B population 2500 30 miles away?
At best, IMO, electric vehicles inside the big cities, hybrids and ICE out in the boonies.
Jerund t1_j9u2vwr wrote
I see it with my friend group. Around half bought houses/condos.
NecrisRO t1_j9subty wrote
Yeah, something isn't right about the data, if they have the son of X rich guy with 1000 homes and 1000 dudes with no home and average that as 100% ownership ? Because I have a hunch that's what's happening here.
Jonsj t1_j9t5j7d wrote
That would not average to 100% ownership, it would average to 1 home per person, very different.
The statistic would read 0,1% home ownership.
Jerund t1_j9u34ye wrote
Exactly. If one person owns ten homes. You aren’t counted as ten homeowner. You would just be counted as 1 homeowner.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments