Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Blame the boomers (again)! This time it's the affordable housing crisis.



Photo above - "We have met the enemy, and she is mom". Newsweek takes boomers to task for not selling their paid off family homes.

Every time I open my Yahoo news feed I'm assaulted by economic garbage. Like the link at bottom, from Newsweek. Full disclosure – Newsweek.com has “1MM+ followers” per their masthead, and my column not quite that many. But then again, millions of "followers" went off a cliff in 1929, 1973 (Saudi Oil price hijacking); 2001 (9/11 attacks); and 2007 (junk mortgage bubble). We may be overdue for another lemming run.

I just don't agree with Newsweek that boomers are existential threat to me. Not when there are several war zones that could trigger World War 3. Not when we are being crushed by $34 trillion in government debt - $340,000 for each American family. Not when we have epic levels of drug overdoses. Not when millions of people fleeing despots and cartels are willing to use their life savings to get to America.

But this IS an election year, and the government (both parties, congress as well as the White House) has no plausible bipartisan plan to fix real problems. Let's blame our parents.

According to Newsweek, our moms are evil. Because they refuse to move out of the home she and dad shared for 30 years. All those memories. The trees they planted together. Where the dog is buried in the backyard. Where they raised the 2.5 kids Wait . . .there's a problem. The kids are baaaaaack !! One is living in the basement. Or possibly their original bedroom, if there's more than one fledgling back at the nest. Mom is okay with that. She doesn't want them to end up someplace worse. THAT might be part of the reason why mom doesn't sell the family home, and downsize to an overpriced condo with no garden, and no dogs allowed.

Newsweek complains that half of retirees own their homes free and clear and refuse to sell them. Wait . . . I thought paying off your mortgage was supposed to be a GOOD thing? I read this someplace a while ago. It might have even been in Newsweek. In the pretzel logic of 2024, being mortgage-free is now part of the problem, not a solution. Just sell your home and move, and the housing crisis will vanish?

If you stop and think about this for 2 seconds, it makes no sense. Selling my house and moving someplace else does NOT increase the total supply of housing. It just enriches moving companies and real estate agents. Maybe the National Association of Realtors is advising Newsweek on this boomer attack piece?

It may be tiresome for realists to keep pointing out high interest rates, but that doesn't make it any less true. Only an idiot would trade in their 2.88% mortgage for a 7.X% mortgage, despite what Newsweek says. Only an idiot would sell their detached single family home on a quarter acre, which has had astronomical gains in value - far above inflation – for a landless condo or townhouse. But only an idiot would rely on Newsweek for economic strategy, actually.

For the past several years, America has built HALF AS MANY NEW HOMES as the rate of population increase. THAT's why home prices are going to the moon. New homes aren't being built because of sky high mortgage rates and local governments' stranglehold on zoning and permits. It has nothing to do with your mom and dad. They paid their taxes and paid off their mortgage. Stop the hating.

Don't crises usually involve a 3rd shoe dropping? One beyond zoning permits and mortgage rates? Don't worry . . . the 3rd shoe is on the horizon. Imagine what happens when the stock market actually starts to decline. All those 401Ks accounts people have been counting on. Do you think there's any possible way that giving everyone's 401K a 20% haircut (or worse) will lead to more housing construction and economic prosperity?

I'm just sayin' . . .

~Boomers Are Refusing to Give Up Their Large Homes (msn.com)~
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
This is some journalist who found a fact and wants to make an allusion without really thinking about the market, interest rates, and cost of living over the past 30 years. Oh, and the people.

Imagine in 1993, a 30 year fixed mortgage wasn't much different than today (7.x%). At 32, your career is going pretty good. You managed to save a down payment, and ready to move out of the "starter home" you bought in 89 with your partner. You've decided that to raise a family, you'll need something a little bigger, maybe outside the city, with a little more land. You find a nice place in a good location in more of a suburban/rural area that has a promising future with other families like you.

So you spend the next 30 years, by no means living beyond your means, and now at 62 make the final payment. The kids are out, and in a few years you can retire, and enjoy the fruits of your labor. The neighborhood is still good, maybe the house needs a little work, however, you're looking forward to being able to spend more time around the house, and can use that extra money each month doing some home improvements.

I mean, that point in life is truly when you can finally settle in and settle down to enjoy those twilight years in the comfort of familiar surroundings.

The author strikes me as being a bit naive.
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@BrewCityBarfly thanks for conceding that the facts in my post are accurate, and nobody thinks 7% mortgages are a good idea. in fact, they suppress housing starts.

If you think it's "naive" to want affordable mortgages, improved zoning regulations, and building enough houses to match population growth, i simply don't know how to respond to that.
@SusanInFlorida My references are to the author/journalist of the Newsweek article, and never stated anything about it being "naive" to want an affordable mortgage. https://www.newsweek.com/boomers-refusing-give-their-large-homes-1893262