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 »

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

I'm sure Newsweek didn't call your mother evil . .

Why is this "economic garbage"? Where the market is behaving inefficiently and there is a mismatch between demand and supply, prices will rise. One reason for this inefficiency is people accumulating and hanging on to assets that they do not require for their own basic housing needs. The same owners of capital are often instrumental in blocking new construction/conversion, which by implication would drive down the value of their investments . .

The depiction of all government as craven and corrupt is convenient, but not convincing in a sphere of economic activity that is largely the preserve of the "free market".

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@SunshineGirl thanks for agreeing the core premise of my post. there IS a mismatch between supply and demand. america builds half as many new homes annually as needed to house the expanding population. we act like a 3rd world nation.

housing starts are low because of high interest rates and restrictive zoning policies.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@SusanInFlorida While your point is correct, it is imcomplete. There are a dozen contributing factors to the rising housing price. And it is a global trend (where its possible) The 'Ghost city" phenomenon in China shows another set of factors that also exist. Its only the recipe of all factors than explains the whole issue. Including the "Buy land. They aint making it anymore" factor.. The supply of land on earth has its limits..Unlike money, you cant print more at will..😷

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@SusanInFlorida We have a similar shortfall in the UK. It's not helped by high interest rates and inflation, but it pre-dates current economic conditions. The main factor in restrictive planning is essentially local democracy. Those lucky enough to own their homes have a disproportionate stake in the community and tend to oppose any new development that would increase supply and by implication affect the value of their asset. Population is growing, but will not do so for much longer (unless a brave governmrnt chooses to liberalise immigration policy). There are nearly a million empty homes in the UK, despite the best efforts of local government to persuade owners to use their property for its intended purpose. And countless empty rooms owing to the capital rich hanging on to property that is far bigger than their housing requirements.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@whowasthatmaskedman Exactly. Land is a finite resource and as such needs to be distributed fairly and efficiently.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@SunshineGirl As a human and in fact as a student of economics I agree with you for very good reasons. But as a Capitalist I cant. Land is a resource and should go to the best able to utilise it. Now before you burn me as a heretic, allow me to say thats not how we currently do things anywhere in the planet. Cities by their nature establish themselves in places with good water and good arable land and conditions. Then we bury that land under buildings and roads and grow nothing on it. Housing and industry should be on land unsuitable for other purposes, to allow agriculture where it can do best. There is a lot more to this argument. But you get the idea..😷

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@whowasthatmaskedman Interesting. If taken to its logical limit, we should probably set aside the whole of New Zealand as an enormous farm and feed the rest of the world. And of course climate change is now making traditionally productive agricultural land unusable and bringing formerly marginal land into economic production, which makes future planning tricky.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@SunshineGirl Actually, the example I was going to use was more extreme. To have a billion people living in cities in the Sahara. Quite feasable with solar power and water desalination. But then you have the issue of employment. But the land is useless for agriculture..😷

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@whowasthatmaskedman Yes, and cities are currently being built in the deserts of the Arabian peninsula. They seem scarily fragile (particularly after the recent floods in Dubai), but certainly makes sense in terms of power sources.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@SunshineGirl I had the good fortune to "do" Dubai about 10 years back and had a tour of a number of inland freeways to nowhere in the desert, just waiting for development funds. But again, there was no real need for the housing or any retail development, because of Dubai has of managing its population. And now some of the artificial reclaimed land built as luxury for foreigners is starting to subside. Its nice to see the Capitalists take one for the team someplace they arent going to get bailed out..😷

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@SunshineGirl @whowasthatmaskedman this great, if you're making trillions selling crude oil to the planet.

several of those desert sheikdoms have already scaled back their imaginary shangri-las after double checking the numbers.

wait til they start to factor in the cost of air conditioning, fresh water, refrigeration of perishables - all essentials if you plan to live forever in the desert.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@SusanInFlorida Urban development is part of the emirates' efforts to diversify their economies away from fossil fuels. Yes, there are many factors to be weighed up in achieving sustainability, but the electricity at least should be cheap and limitless. In Spain, which has the most extensive network of solar generation, the effective cost to consumers is practically zero during summer . . partly thanks to the lack of private sector involvement.