In other news (apolitical thread)...

[Cincydawg]

I wonder if some factors beyond price are making it less common, including later marriages, more revitalized downtowns, people being more mobile in general, etc. 

Those all are likely factors, at least for some.  Young folks today often change jobs every few years more often than they did back in the day.

[utee94]

Oh yeah, I can certainly see why some might choose not to purchase a home.

But that's not the same as those who are complaining that buying a home is simply beyond them.  That's the assertion I'm challenging.

And one of the basic problems, is that I think many of those who are complaining, are in some ways part of those who are choosing not to.  They're saying that buying a home is beyond them, but what they actually mean is, buying a home in a cool part of town, with easy access to the lifestyle amenities they desire, that's as large and luxurious as they feel they deserve, while working "gig" jobs due to their lack of desire to commit to a career or a particular location, is beyond them. 

And those are two entirely different things.

[847badgerfan]

If we’re talking Europe, I’m probably living in Spain or Italy. Question is where- cause there are lots of places in both countries I’ve been that I’d love to live in lol.

Summers in Tuscany, winters in Sicily.

[847badgerfan]

well Austin is a pretty liberal city so I think if a bunch of liberal comics from LA moved to Austin and didn’t like it- it’s probably for other reasons than political leanings of residents.

I’ve only been to Austin twice and I loved it. But I can’t live anywhere other than South Florida. I like the palm trees and beaches too much. But it’s getting way too overcrowded. 10 years ago it was like the perfect amount of people. Now it’s just too damn many.

I think if money was no object I’d live in Manhattan- but that’s only if I could be flown around in helicopters and driven in limousines and I had a 8,000 sq Ft penthouse which would probably cost $100 million. Otherwise fuck living in New York. Way too much traffic congestion. And why pay $8,000 a month for a 1,000 sq ft 2/2 shoebox apartment and then another $1,000 a month for a parking spot? New York is a city that only makes any sense to live in at all if you’re massively wealthy imo. Otherwise you’re basically just another cockroach squirming around in the shithole. No thanks.

Austin is a great place to visit, but I'm with you on Florida. I wouldn't want to live on your side though - maybe up where Honest Buckeye is as it's not as nuts a little further up.

[Mdot21]

Summers in Tuscany, winters in Sicily.

that’s not a bad combo….at all.

[bayareabadger]

And one of the basic problems, is that I think many of those who are complaining, are in some ways part of those who are choosing not to.  They're saying that buying a home is beyond them, but what they actually mean is, buying a home in a cool part of town, with easy access to the lifestyle amenities they desire, that's as large and luxurious as they feel they deserve, while working "gig" jobs due to their lack of desire to commit to a career or a particular location, is beyond them.

And those are two entirely different things.

I think what we might be getting at is you're telling younger people to want less, or that you/older folks simply wanted less than they do. Or somewhere in between. And that is what it is.

Edit: I should modify this somewhat. It sounds harsh, and my gut is much of the argument is just being harsh across generations unproductively. It feels like the message is basically, you’re gonna have to move far afield more often than not. Suck up the commute, all that. And if you don’t, well, no good house situation. Sorry. 

Shoot, even in Ca. move far enough out and you can get that house. Or live in certain hoods. 

(I think that bit about "gig" jobs is a misapplication of that phrase. And usually the inability to commit to location is tied to a high level of commitment to a career. That reads a bit grumpy old man for grumps sake, at least to me)

[Cincydawg]

I think what we might be getting at is you're telling younger people to want less, or that you/older folks simply wanted less than they do. Or somewhere in between. And that is what it is.

I started with a lot "less" than I ended up with, so yeah, folks should be willing to accept a starter home or quit whining in my view.  They should be willing to save and put off and sacrifice to get their financial house in order, and no, it's not easy, and for some I realize it's not possible.  

Another factor I've heard about is older retirees staying put, not sellling their house, even though it's four bedrooms and more space than they need.  They can sell at a nice profit but then what?  And they may be comfortable and just keep putting things off.  We would have stayed put in Cincy were it not for the winters, and another special situation.

My wife's house was very nice.  I hated the wood peckers constantly drilling holes in the siding.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Were I Uber Wealthy, I'd likely pick California, probably SF, maybe even LA.  There are parts of both cities that are prime, I've seen more upscale places in LA than SF.  And yeah, I'm talking billionaire wealth.  Helo to take me to John Wayne to fly to Zurich or Geneva on a lark.  If we open the options to outside the US, the question gets tougher.

Sonoma county might work.

I wouldn't do SF or LA. I prefer a little quiet and space. I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago, and I really feel that "big city adjacent" works for me... You get all the advantages of being near a big city, but without living IN the middle of said city. 

Sonoma County would DEFINITELY work for me. I could see myself in a place like Healdsburg. Just south of me, San Clemente would work--but it would have to be a big fancy house with an ocean view, or it'd be too crowded. Maybe Santa Barbara or Paso, if I really wanted it to be chill and quiet.

If I had that kind of money, I'd live in the US for a few years and just "sample" the rest of the world. I don't think I've seen enough of it yet to say I'd definitively be able to pick somewhere overseas to live. Maybe I'd consider leaving after that, and maybe I wouldn't. 

Being super-rich and not having to worry about anything monetary, I'm not sure that I'd pick anywhere in the US over California. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

(I think that bit about "gig" jobs is a misapplication of that phrase. And usually the inability to commit to location is tied to a high level of commitment to a career. That reads a bit grumpy old man for grumps sake, at least to me)

True... I think most people who have "gig jobs" take the job where they are currently living and aren't trying to move. Whereas a lot of career-oriented folks move where the job situations take them. 

[bayareabadger]

True... I think most people who have "gig jobs" take the job where they are currently living and aren't trying to move. Whereas a lot of career-oriented folks move where the job situations take them.

I used to be more “career” oriented. That meant three cross state moves. 

Then I pivoted careers. Now I’m only gonna live where I am now or the Bay Area (or somewhere that a partner’s career or lifestyle takes me).

[OrangeAfroMan]

Oh yeah, I can certainly see why some might choose not to purchase a home.

But that's not the same as those who are complaining that buying a home is simply beyond them.  That's the assertion I'm challenging.

And one of the basic problems, is that I think many of those who are complaining, are in some ways part of those who are choosing not to.  They're saying that buying a home is beyond them, but what they actually mean is, buying a home in a cool part of town, with easy access to the lifestyle amenities they desire, that's as large and luxurious as they feel they deserve, while working "gig" jobs due to their lack of desire to commit to a career or a particular location, is beyond them.

And those are two entirely different things.

It's literally a virtual stagnation of wages over 30+ years with home prices going up up up.  It's not complicated.  

[Cincydawg]

[Cincydawg]

It's literally a virtual stagnation of wages over 30+ years with home prices going up up up.  It's not complicated. 

We're discussing other factors that could be important.  And there has been some increase in real median income, just not nearly as much as housing prices have expanded.  So, why have housing prices gone up so fast?  That is one topic we are discussing.  There are several apparent reasons.  

[Cincydawg]

It could be interesting to see the median age of first time home buyers over the years.  This is pretty telling.  One factor might be that some folks think the market is over heated and will collapse "soon" (some probably  have been thinking that for a decade).



Many first-time homebuyers are pushing 40 as millennials wait in vain for a better market

The median age of first-time homebuyers hit 38 last year, up from 35 in 2023 and almost a decade older than in the 1980s, when the typical homebuyer was just 29, the National Association of Realtors reported late last year. Homeownership rates for Gen Z and millennials stalled in 2024, Redfin found, while older generations continued to make “fairly standard” gains despite the high costs. 
The jump in the average age of first-time buyers is shocking, said Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at Redfin.
“We typically think of a first-time homebuyer as somebody in their early 30s, not late 30s,” she said.