Millennials are starting to get priced out of entire cities, and it's generally the ones with the most jobs available.
It's starting to look like "millennial" will become an insult meaning someone with no job and no money, hilarious given that it applies to an entire generation.
Most of these residents are also old. It's literally the boomer generation fucking over everyone trying to move in for their own benefit.
And ignore all the environmental bullcrap that existing home owners will try to astroturf. People won't hurt environment by gathering in one place that they did by spreading up.
The job growth is in knowledge, which benefits from being close by. For example, last week I walked from the office to Eventbrite to learn what they're doing. No way you're getting the same benefit from watching a video. To promote the best opportunities, we're going to have to reform our existing cities.
If you're trying to build a new community, it's going to require some other benefit. Like Peter Thiel and his seasteading.
I'm not in Cali or NYC either.
[1] http://www.zillow.com/agent-resources/download/todays-first-...
"Devastating" the housing market to make it possible for younger Americans to buy homes again will only decrease wealth inequality since the ones who own homes are generally wealthy.
It's not like the houses will suddenly go away if housing prices drop. They are hard assets, nothing is destroyed by the lowering of housing values besides speculative worth.
Sure some people would lose a lot of money but it would largely hurt the wealthy and help income equality along with leveling the gap a bit between those generations and poorest one in our history
I beg to differ. Wealthy will be fine because they have diversified assets. The ones truly hurt would be people in their 30's, who have just started putting down roots (first home, family etc) and would have invested a chunk of their savings in the downpayment. So wealth inequality might reduce a bit between top 20% and bottom 20%. But it will increase between 1% and the rest.
> ...nothing is destroyed by the lowering of housing values besides speculative worth.
Household balance sheets for middle-class, whose main asset is their homes, are destroyed. Now suddenly you are left with, say, a mortgage of 400K vs a house worth only 250K.
> ... help income equality along with leveling the gap a bit ...
Nope - the boomers would still fare better since their mortgages should have been paid off by now (generally), and they have a decent rich safety net. Ones screwed are genX and genY as I explained above.
The boomers have more invested in the houses so more to lose. Having a home paid off just means even more money invested in your home, not less. Gen X and y will be hurt but not as much because defaulting on a loan will mean the liability goes back to the bank. Strategic default has been a thing since Britain abolished debtors prisons, and if you lose enough value in something you don't own there's always the option to walk away. If you own your house you absorb 100% of the loss of your asset with no way out.
The banks will be forced to make concessions to those with mortgages or face 100% of the value loss on their own balance sheets, so the effect on those who don't completely own their property will be muted and shared between with the lenders
No idea how you sell that idea to voters though.
Also, at current prices, we are spending a fortune on primitive old houses, and the current obsession with "neighborhood character," some people spend another fortune and only manage to redecorate the interior.
We really should be tearing down and rebuilding. Not preserving merely the façade of the neighborhood.
One thing that is true in most conditions, though, is that in comparing alternatives where a young person buys more house than they need (which used to be quite common) against renting a modest and reasonable "young adult" apartment, renting is likely to come out ahead.
I took a gig in Houston in 2011, knew it was a bubble going in, and rented. I probably paid $200 more per month to rent vs. buy. Apres la deluge in 2016, I was in great shape; it cost me roughly $12k as insurance against having to sell into a down market.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Producti...
home prices and jobs kind of come together, not always but mostly. its sort of like wishing no one would eat at your favorite restaurant so you wouldn't have to wait in line, only to see it go out of business.
millennials will have to do better than wishing people ahead of them get dragged down so they can jump ahead.
It's not about millennials "jumping ahead" either. This generation came of age during the worst recession since the great depression. They are on track to be the poorest generation in American history. The combination of funding cuts to state universities and rising housing costs in places with jobs available gives millennials less choice and more debt than any generation alive in the US.
This is a generation that is the best educated but poorest in our nation's history, coming right after one of the richest and prolific generations. The implications are clear. The previous generation maintaining the status quo. They voted for the funding cuts and NIMBYism that resulted in the lack of housing and student loan debt of the current generation.
I am not a boomer, but they have been in charge for a while and have really messed things up.
the housing crisis happened and cities were broke.
"Two, schools have already been hit hard with horrible admin teams and the rise of open-enrollment."
has nothing to do with the fact that schools would be hurt by falling tax revenue.
"Three, jobs don't have as much of an affect on home prices as they once did."
even if true, doesnt change the fact they are still linked. san francisco would become a whole lot affordable if the tech industry closed doors tomorrow. however, those wanting to go to san francisco for a job but couldnt afford the housing would find themselves with a less compelling need to go to san francisco.
i agree boomers messed up things quite a bit, but that has little to do with the fact that falling house prices have been proven to be bad for nearly everyone.
If housing values dropped again we would hopefully be safe from all that this time. People are largely living in places they can afford and banks don't have half the US GDP tied up in risky housing bonds and bad loans
the housing crisis happened and cities were broke.
We identify five main channels through which the housing market affects state
and local tax revenues: property tax revenues, transfer tax revenues, sales
tax revenues, and personal income tax revenues.
We find that property tax revenues do not tend to decrease following house
price declines.
We conclude that the recent contraction in state and local tax revenues has
been driven primarily by the general economic recession, rather than the
housing market per-se.