Was curious, so I dug into Joey's sources, specifically on homeownership. It shows basically what I expected. So he's saying it rose from 55% to 66%. By his own census data, some interesting trends emerge.
1950s: 1 person households - 42.1%
2000s: 52.1%
Huh. So it's like I said in my other comment, it's people living separately, instead of as a family.
Let's keep digging:
1950s: Mobile homes - 79.4%
2000s: 79.2%
So there hasn't been a huge change in living conditions, the proportions have stayed steady.
Now, here's the best one:
1950s: Age 65 and over - 67.9%
2000s: Age 65 and over - 78.1%
So, trying to compare the "zoomers" to the boomers is a swing and a miss, there, big time. It's not the current generation that has seen an upswing in homeownership.
The change seems to be mostly in older generations and single people, when in the past at least some of those single people would have been living in a house anyway, just not listed as the homeowner.
So, as I guessed before digging into it, things do seem worse now on the homeownership front, even according to this guy's own sources.
So it's like I said in my other comment, it's people living separately, instead of as a family.
True, which makes the difference starker since you need double the houses to house single people as opposed to married people, AND affording your own home on a single income as a single person is much harder than having a family.
1950s: Mobile homes - 79.4% 2000s: 79.2%
I don't know what this is, but nowhere near 79% of people live in mobile homes.
It's not the current generation that has seen an upswing in homeownership.
You don't know that. Just because old people are more likely to own homes now doesn't mean under-65 are not.
even according to this guy's own sources.
I welcome you to bring "your own" sources. This guy is just using official stats.
I also reject home ownership as being so important. I choose to rent because it's a superior financial choice. I save a lot of money which I put in the stock market. If house prices crash, THEN I can buy at a huge discount. Otherwise, the stock market is objectively better.
You don't know that. Just because old people are more likely to own homes now doesn't mean under-65 are not.
I think like many a stat, its going to depend wildly on where in the country you are. Like the stats I always see about how "no one is having children, getting married, etc" for all of the life events. Yet where I live out on the Great Plains, there are tons of children in my town (and yes, they were white. Since that is usually what people complain about), people are getting and staying married, people are getting good jobs, etc.
Also, on the note of the OP image: You can do all of that stuff on one income still like your grandparents did. You just have to have only one car, have a house about half the size of the average modern home (and of course, your children bunk it up instead of getting individual rooms), you cant have internet, you cant have a phone, you cant have anything more than basic cable for a TV, etc. The list goes on, but I think you get the hint. People complain about how a 1950's income doesnt work anymore, while wanting a 2020's lifestyle on a 1950's income.
People complain about how a 1950's income doesnt work anymore, while wanting a 2020's lifestyle on a 1950's income.
True
Yet where I live out on the Great Plains, there are tons of children in my town (and yes, they were white. Since that is usually what people complain about), people are getting and staying married, people are getting good jobs, etc.
The people complaining are zoomers who grew up in deep blue urban cores like Seattle, New York, DC, LA, SF, etc and feel entitled to have the same lifestyle at 25 that their parents had at 45. Many of these zoomers feel superior and entitled, many have advanced and valuable degrees, and many even make more money than their parents did at their age, yet are outraged that this doesn't translate into skipping ahead 25-35 years and leapfrogging ahead of their parents.
My grandparents bought their house for $15k in the LA area. At the time they bought it, it was cheap because it was in the middle of buttfuck nowhere. Obviously 50 years later, it's in the center of an urban core. Following this analogy, the zoomers can easily afford to buy a big house, bigger than their parents/grandparents at their age if they're willing to live far away and commute which, of course, many of them aren't, but thems the breaks.
And yes, commutes were shorter 50 years ago. There was less of everything back then. Fewer people, smaller cities, fewer cars, so yeah, commutes were shorter. That's how development works. My grandparents moved to LA back when it was still a "developing" city. They didn't try to go live and work in NYC.
Zoomers don't want to move to a smaller city. They want to be in the biggest big cities. They want to live downtown in a hipster loft and go to all the trendy places on Yelp. Well, tough shit. Real estate is a product of the wealth of who bids, and older people who have had more years of work to build up a savings have by far more buying power, so they will get the houses in the more desirable areas. Zoomers have to accept living farther away if they want their own house on the cheap.
Was curious, so I dug into Joey's sources, specifically on homeownership. It shows basically what I expected. So he's saying it rose from 55% to 66%. By his own census data, some interesting trends emerge.
1950s: 1 person households - 42.1%
2000s: 52.1%
Huh. So it's like I said in my other comment, it's people living separately, instead of as a family.
Let's keep digging:
1950s: Mobile homes - 79.4%
2000s: 79.2%
So there hasn't been a huge change in living conditions, the proportions have stayed steady.
Now, here's the best one:
1950s: Age 65 and over - 67.9%
2000s: Age 65 and over - 78.1%
So, trying to compare the "zoomers" to the boomers is a swing and a miss, there, big time. It's not the current generation that has seen an upswing in homeownership.
The change seems to be mostly in older generations and single people, when in the past at least some of those single people would have been living in a house anyway, just not listed as the homeowner.
So, as I guessed before digging into it, things do seem worse now on the homeownership front, even according to this guy's own sources.
True, which makes the difference starker since you need double the houses to house single people as opposed to married people, AND affording your own home on a single income as a single person is much harder than having a family.
I don't know what this is, but nowhere near 79% of people live in mobile homes.
You don't know that. Just because old people are more likely to own homes now doesn't mean under-65 are not.
I welcome you to bring "your own" sources. This guy is just using official stats.
I also reject home ownership as being so important. I choose to rent because it's a superior financial choice. I save a lot of money which I put in the stock market. If house prices crash, THEN I can buy at a huge discount. Otherwise, the stock market is objectively better.
I think like many a stat, its going to depend wildly on where in the country you are. Like the stats I always see about how "no one is having children, getting married, etc" for all of the life events. Yet where I live out on the Great Plains, there are tons of children in my town (and yes, they were white. Since that is usually what people complain about), people are getting and staying married, people are getting good jobs, etc.
Also, on the note of the OP image: You can do all of that stuff on one income still like your grandparents did. You just have to have only one car, have a house about half the size of the average modern home (and of course, your children bunk it up instead of getting individual rooms), you cant have internet, you cant have a phone, you cant have anything more than basic cable for a TV, etc. The list goes on, but I think you get the hint. People complain about how a 1950's income doesnt work anymore, while wanting a 2020's lifestyle on a 1950's income.
True
The people complaining are zoomers who grew up in deep blue urban cores like Seattle, New York, DC, LA, SF, etc and feel entitled to have the same lifestyle at 25 that their parents had at 45. Many of these zoomers feel superior and entitled, many have advanced and valuable degrees, and many even make more money than their parents did at their age, yet are outraged that this doesn't translate into skipping ahead 25-35 years and leapfrogging ahead of their parents.
My grandparents bought their house for $15k in the LA area. At the time they bought it, it was cheap because it was in the middle of buttfuck nowhere. Obviously 50 years later, it's in the center of an urban core. Following this analogy, the zoomers can easily afford to buy a big house, bigger than their parents/grandparents at their age if they're willing to live far away and commute which, of course, many of them aren't, but thems the breaks.
And yes, commutes were shorter 50 years ago. There was less of everything back then. Fewer people, smaller cities, fewer cars, so yeah, commutes were shorter. That's how development works. My grandparents moved to LA back when it was still a "developing" city. They didn't try to go live and work in NYC.
Zoomers don't want to move to a smaller city. They want to be in the biggest big cities. They want to live downtown in a hipster loft and go to all the trendy places on Yelp. Well, tough shit. Real estate is a product of the wealth of who bids, and older people who have had more years of work to build up a savings have by far more buying power, so they will get the houses in the more desirable areas. Zoomers have to accept living farther away if they want their own house on the cheap.