Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck United States

Nobody Is Moving, Especially Millennials (nymag.com) 491

Posted by msmash from the how-we-live dept.
For a fun new entry into millennials are lazy, consider this: According to new data tracked down by Richard Fry for Pew Research, just 20 percent of 25- to 35-year-olds (Old Millennials, if you will) reported having lived at a different address the previous year. From a report on NYMag: In 2000, a full 26 percent of Gen-Xers -- then at the same age range -- had reported making a move in the previous year. In 1963, members of the Silent Generation moved at a 26 percent rate, too. The census data being used here doesn't include college-dorm moves prevalent with 18- to 24-year-olds, so those young'uns are left out of the analysis. The 20 percent rate is the lowest level of young adult mobility in half a century, Fry reports, and all this with millennials getting married, owning homes, and having kids less than previous generations. Student debt and less favorable lending rates may be driving down homeownership -- imagine that -- which further reduces movement. Psychologically, this also means that young adults are more stuck with their personalities and faded of memory compared with their more mobile peers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nobody Is Moving, Especially Millennials More

Nobody Is Moving, Especially Millennials

Comments Filter:

  • moving all the time is dumb (Score:4, Insightful)

    by known_coward_69 ( 4151743 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:03PM (#53857887)

    sure you might make more money cash wise, but you're going to be a perpetual renter aka sharecropper with nothing to your name

    putting down roots means you can buy property at a younger age which means you will pay it off faster and have kids at a younger age. the perpetual movers will be the people having their first kid at 45 and no spare cash from having their rent increase all the time

    • Re:having kids is dumb (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Anyone that has kids has pretty much forfeited their ticket to the good life. Why anyone would waste hundreds of thousands of dollars bringing more people into an already overcrowded world that will surely disappoint them is completely beyond me, particularly when you consider the mobility and quality of life you will be sacrificing to make this happen simply to follow a biological imperative.

      • Re:having kids is dumb (Score:4, Insightful)

        by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Monday February 13, 2017 @05:32PM (#53860205) Journal

        Anyone that has kids has pretty much forfeited their ticket to the good life.

        I counter your assertion with the opposite: Anyone who doesn't have kids has forfeited the greatest experiences life has to offer.

        I've raised (or am still raising) four kids. The youngest is 15, the oldest 23. They're not perfect kids, by any means. Being a parent has been -- by far -- the most challenging thing I've ever done, and I think I've done some hard things. It's also simultaneously the most heartbreaking and most incredibly rewarding. There's a lot of truth in the idea that the deepest joy to be found in life comes from serving others, and there is no deeper, more thorough, more enduring or more dedicated service than that a parent gives to a child. I don't think the biological link has anything to do with it, either; raising an adopted baby to adulthood would be the same (I didn't do that, but I know several who did raise both biological and adopted children).

        What it's about is caring for another human being from the time they're completely helpless until the time they can become independent and succeed on their own, and on their own terms. It's about loving them and building a unique and very human bond. And when I say "unique", I mean that it's different for every parent and child. My relationship with each of my children is very different, because they are very different people. It's about living through their heartbreaks and joys, their failures and victories, and supporting and encouraging them through it all. It's also about teaching them the ways of the world, and about right and wrong and good and bad.

        Oh, life certainly has a lot to offer those who don't have children. I've been economically successful enough that my wife and I do a lot of the things that DINKs do and enjoy. We do have the "good life". We have hobbies, we travel and we have nice things, and all of those are good.

        But all of those experiences are... shallow. Nothing like the challenges and joys of raising children. I make enough money that I didn't really have to choose, but if I did, knowing what I do, I'd take the kids and give the "good life" a pass.

    • If you are moving around, you are not limited to the opportunities in the area that you are in. No opportunities, no chance to grow, you become a sharecropper. Just take a look at all those company towns that depended upon the one factory in the area for job. Once it left, they had nothing to fall back on.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Hylandr ( 813770 )

      sure you might make more money cash wise, but you're going to be a perpetual renter aka sharecropper with nothing to your name

      putting down roots means you can buy property at a younger age which means you will pay it off faster and have kids at a younger age. the perpetual movers will be the people having their first kid at 45 and no spare cash from having their rent increase all the time

      Not true at all. You have to recall that all surveys and questionnaires are only valid for the demographic that chooses to participate in surveys or questionnaires.

      My family and I have moved for almost every job I have had in the tech sector and we have had 8 children in the last 20 years. No, we don't own a home, but we are currently working on a Bus to live in as we move between contracts.

      Our debt to income ration is damn low for a couple in their 40's. If I were to buy I would save up and pay outright.

    • RTFS. They're not just staying in one city, they're staying at one address. This means nobody is buying houses. It's another sign the Millennials are getting screwed. The evidence keeps mounting and the media keeps ignoring it.

  • Psychologically, this also means that young adults (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:04PM (#53857893)

    Psychologically, this also means that young adults are more stuck with their personalities and faded of memory compared with their more mobile peers.

    Practically, this means that the writer of this article is a psychobabbling fool.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by TWX ( 665546 )
      I was trying to figure out what the hell that statement actually means.

      Thinking back to when I was 18-25 I moved six times. Moving out, moving from ghetto apartment to share a house, moving because the landlord needed the house for the next generation to go to college. Moving out of the nice apartment because the landlord was tired of being a landlord in-general and wanted to sell (even offered to sell to me but it wasn't where I wanted to live permanently), moving out of the house I rented with an ex-
  • If the running zeitgeist includes pessimism about one's economic outlook, these sorts of things shouldn't come as a surprise.

  • Bubble (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:07PM (#53857919)

    We're waiting for the bubble to burst again. Hopefully this time they don't bail out the banks and and the idiots who bought mcmansions. The bailouts (including "Keep Your Home California") prevented me, a responsible, financially stable adult, from owning a home. Prices are over double what they should be in my area.
    People don't have roommates, they have roomfamilies.

    • Re:Bubble (Score:4, Interesting)

      by known_coward_69 ( 4151743 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:09PM (#53857945)

      keep dreaming. there is no bubble this time cause i don't hear about short term loans being used to buy homes with no money down like 10 years ago

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It'll happen all over again when Trump and his congressional cronies gut Dodd-Frank.

        Banks already got the golden egg and consumers over a barrel.

        What is prime rate today? 3.75%? Yet they don't pay shit for savings interest and ass-rape you on your loans and credit line. Then they nickel and dime you with ATM and check fees.

    • Re:Bubble (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gtall ( 79522 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:23PM (#53858089)

      You do realize that if the banks and the financial system had seized up, no one would be buying anything for a long, long time, yes?

      Many bank shareholders lost plenty. The systemic risk was enabled by weak federal oversight and did not only involve the banks. The developers, the real estate agents, the local pols, dear sainted Americans who (flipped houses and/or bought stupidly and/or double mortgaged), etc. The list is of perps is long.

      And what lesson did the pols learn? Screw all the banks equally, even the small-town banks that were not part of the problem. And now the goal is to remove as many constraints as possible, without fixing any of the underlying reasons the perps were able to walk away with the loot.

      It may take a bit of time, but there will be another bubble, and the rules will be such that the fed. gov. won't be able to make the financial sector liquid again very easily. When that happens, watch out.

    • Re:Bubble (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:27PM (#53858139)

      Bubble? What bubble, my house is still worth 20% less than when I bought it 10 years ago. There is no bubble, and that's why people aren't moving. They owe too much on their house from last time the bubble burst. If selling your house means you have to pay the bank money to close out the mortgage, you're probably not going to move.

      • Bubble? What bubble, my house is still worth 20% less than when I bought it 10 years ago. There is no bubble, and that's why people aren't moving. They owe too much on their house from last time the bubble burst. If selling your house means you have to pay the bank money to close out the mortgage, you're probably not going to move.

        Same here. I live in the U.S. Midwest, and my house is still worth 20% less than when I bought it 10 years ago.

        Unless I win the lottery, this is the last home I'll ever own. (I'm 50, BTW.)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by TWX ( 665546 )
        Actually a short-sale is a thing and if paying whatever costs are necessary for the short-sale is far cheaper than paying the upside-down cost on the mortgage, then the short-sale approach probably makes more sense.

        It's not like if you paid $200,000 for a house and you can sell only for $150,000 that you have to pay the bank $50,000. You might have to pay tax against that $50,000, and you might have to be careful about what state you move to as short-sale laws are not consistent across all states, but g

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

        Bubble? What bubble, my house is still worth 20% less than when I bought it 10 years ago. There is no bubble, and that's why people aren't moving. They owe too much on their house from last time the bubble burst. If selling your house means you have to pay the bank money to close out the mortgage, you're probably not going to move.

        That, and the fact that the homes that are for sale or currently being built are all ridiculously overpriced. We bought our house about a year and a half ago. It's about 15 years old, 2k square feet and 3bd/2.5bath and we paid just under 200k for it. There is a ton of new construction here now and it all starts at 300-350K for townhomes and 400k+ for single family homes. And we are on the very outer edges of the metro area. If we hadn't gotten this house when we did we would still be renting, and stuck

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by nine-times ( 778537 )

      Hopefully this time they don't bail out the banks and and the idiots who bought mcmansions.

      And how do you imagine that would work out? If everyone's bank accounts suddenly evaporate, your savings will be gone. And your employer's bank accounts will disappear. And your employer's customers' bank accounts will disappear. And then you have riots in the streets.

      I suppose the houses that escape the fires will be cheaper, assuming anyone has money to buy them. You won't be able to get a loan because the banks will be gone, and you'll have no savings, so it's not clear where that money will come f

      • Re:Bubble (Score:5, Interesting)

        by slew ( 2918 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @04:11PM (#53859261)

        Hopefully this time they don't bail out the banks and and the idiots who bought mcmansions.

        And how do you imagine that would work out? If everyone's bank accounts suddenly evaporate, your savings will be gone. And your employer's bank accounts will disappear. And your employer's customers' bank accounts will disappear. And then you have riots in the streets.

        I suppose the houses that escape the fires will be cheaper, assuming anyone has money to buy them. You won't be able to get a loan because the banks will be gone, and you'll have no savings, so it's not clear where that money will come from.. And it's not clear what currency anyone will be accepting.

        Cyprus set the template for the bail-in. Basically, they can freeze all "cash-equivalent" assets for weeks and when unfrozen, everything above the FDIC** insurance limit takes a haircut (40% in the case of Cyprus)... This event basically put everyone on notice to have a contingency plan for this. If your employer doesn't have a contingency for this, they are stupid. If you are carrying cash-equivalent assets above the FDIC/SIPC limit, you are either too rich to care, or have stupidly invested your money.

        The theory of the bail-in, is that it forces "rich" folks to take appropriate risks with their money and not burden the state with being the backstop for deposit insurance to those that should be able to manage the risk. Some people don't seem to understand that in order to work at all, it requires the *pause* (frozen-assets), otherwise these events just precipitates a bank run.

        Historically, in order to avoid major FDIC insurance impact of liquidation, the FDIC has shopped the bank assets to other banks (so-called purchase and assumption agreements), but has needed to kick in a sweetener to cover the over FDIC limit deposits. Now the FDIC can simply convert over-limit FDIC deposits into bank-shares which eliminates the need for them to kick in the sweetener. Unfortunately, the rules are ambiguous an allow them to convert *any deposits* into bank-shares if it is deemed necessary if it "mitigates the potential for serious adverse effects to the financial system.”

        **of course in Cyprus, the insurance limit was defined by the EU...

    • Not advocating a minimalist lifestyle, but you can read a lot about it from James Altucher [jamesaltucher.com] who has done it. Most of us can probably do with a lot less stuff. One of the things Altucher advises against is over-leveraging yourself, especially when it comes to housing and education.

  • Connected to jobs also (Score:5, Informative)

    by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:08PM (#53857923) Homepage
    Millenials have fewer job prospects in general and are less wealthy than their parents were at the same age. This is true by a variety of different metrics. See e.g. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/01/13/millennials-falling-behind-boomer-parents/96530338/ [usatoday.com]. In the last few years, something, it isn't clear what, has been drastically reducing the resources available to young people. This is combining with cost disease http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost-disease/ [slatestarcodex.com] in a way that is leaving many people in the young age bracket with far less effective purchasing power than their parents would have had for many things. It isn't completely the case; some goods such as computers and cell phones are far cheaper (and often weren't even available to their parents) but that's a relatively small fraction of their total goods. Some other trends are clear positive, such as the reduction in poverty in the US, and the overall trends throughout the world are mainly positive. See e.g. https://singularityhub.com/2016/06/27/why-the-world-is-better-than-you-think-in-10-powerful-charts/ [singularityhub.com]. But the US specific young people are clearly going through a bad time in general.

    • I don't see why there should be a positive correlation between being less wealthy and moving less. In fact, poverty is often the driving force behind moving to or within the US. Think about okies during the great depression, Irish during the potato famine, etc.

      The current resistance to moving is surprising since some areas of the US have significantly more economic opportunities than others, but fewer people are moving to take advantage of them. (That said, there is still a fair number of people who move.)

      • Moving also means a considerable expense. Even ignoring any social or personal aspects that arise from uprooting yourself and moving away, moving always entails a considerable financial investment.

        Now couple this with the general job (in)security and an insane turnover rate. Would you move across the country and spend what you might make in 3 months on it if you know that your chance to even still have the job in 3 months is really low?

      • Poverty leading to moving only works where there is somewhere to go that isn't suffering the same problem. The parent post would imply this issue is across the entire U.S. Credit card interest, college costs, energy costs all are up reducing purchasing power overall. But, at the same time, everybody wants internet, cell phone, and cable, all luxury items, but which costs significantly more than they used to.

  • sorry, what? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:08PM (#53857927)

    "young adults are more stuck with their personalities and faded of memory "

    what?

  • Nobody *and* especially. (Score:3)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:08PM (#53857929)

    Nobody Is Moving, Especially Millennials

    Dear Drake Baer and NY Mag Editors, If "nobody" is moving, then there cannot be an "especially".

    Also, who cares? I'm 53 and have lived in the same house (which is paid for) since 1993 and the same city since 1980.

  • More mocking (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Moof123 ( 1292134 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:10PM (#53857959)

    Clearly we need to mock and make fun of millennials more, previous disrespect has been inadequate to make them flourish just like the good ol' days.

    In a slightly more serious note, this was predicted. A fair number of reputable economists warned us of our own lost generation after the 2008 crash. The bottom of the ladder got pulled and the replacement jobs available to low experience young folk are not as relatively good as what was available for other generations. So you have low wage earners with stacks of debt from surviving (how dare they!), and from getting a college degree like they were told was the only good path thousands of times (suckers!).

    But it is easier to make fun of how they dress different, and use funny new words (like EVERY generation of young folks before them) than to fix the lack of good entry level jobs, low wages, expensive healthcare, and over priced tuition. It looks to me like society has failed a generation and they have made rational choices to live within their means to the extent possible.

  • Why is Default Not an Option? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Malggi ( 791997 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:16PM (#53858005)

    So this may sound crazy, but I wonder why today's twenty-somethings don't just simply default on their loans.

    I'm a Gen Xer. I graduated college in 2000, just in time for the dot com bubble burst and 9/11 to mess with the economy. The only job I could find was as an overnight janitor at a hotel. I made $8 an hour.

    There was no way I could afford both rent and student loans, so I simply didn't pay the loans. Sure it ruined my credit, but at $8 an hour it's not like anybody would be giving me loans anyways.

    3.5 years later I got a job making $14 an hour, which allowed me to start paying the loans back again. As my career has progressed I've gotten promotions and raises and whatnot. Now I'm financially secure, the loans are all paid off and my credit score hovers around 750.

    Careless lending by the banks is a big reason the economy is in the mess it's in today. Why pay them money before taking care of yourself? Maybe if banks were feeling some pain we'd actually see some social programs to help young people out.

    • Re:Why is Default Not an Option? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Moof123 ( 1292134 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:29PM (#53858163)

      Federal student loans are non-dischargeable. Also, many places run your credit to get an apartment, get a job, get a security clearance, dealers run your credit to get a car loan, etc. So while totally dropping out of the "system" is an option (i.e. becoming homeless), it is hard to have much of a life withing the "system" while not paying your bills.

      If you do manage to get an apartment, find a way to commute, and get a job with blighted credit you still face having your wages garnished, or your bank accounts emptied to pay back those federal loans. No money in the bank means you then stand a good chance of not making rent, having your car repossessed, and then losing your job.

      Dandy "system" we have, don't you think?

      You can get income based repayment options, or get forbearance for a time, but you can't just walk away.

      • I knew a friend of a friend, a girl, who had recently left school with a useless degree. She had gone in default on her student loans, and I was trying to tell her that the whole thing was avoidable, and that there still were things she could do to deal with that, repair her credit, and avoid wage garnishment. She insisted on being hopeless, deciding that she'd join the military on some hope or prayer that it would forgive her debt.

        Though you're not able declare bankruptcy, there's still things you can do i

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

          Though you're not able declare bankruptcy, there's still things you can do if you can't pay back your student loans. Something I use to help is called Income Based Repayment. With that alone you basically have no excuse to let things get that bad, and if you pay it consistently, your debt is forgiven in 20 years - less if you work in education.

          I did IBR too, but now I make enough that the only plan I can go on is the default 10 year repayment. As for your friend of a friend, someone should have told her that th military route only really works before you go to college. Pretty sure the GI Bill doesn't work retroactively or else there would be lines a mile long outside every single recruitment station. She would have been better off trying to teach in an inner city school for a few years. Pretty much the only way to quickly get student loan deb

    • I wonder why today's twenty-somethings don't just simply default on their loans.

      Mainly because student loans are not relieved from bankruptcy like other debt. That means they can garnish your wages, social security benefits and other government benefits. Basically, you do not have a retirement with outstanding student loan debt.

  • I used to think it would be fun to move around the world. However, now that I have kids, moving isn't practical. Family is a wonderful support system. Moving far away means that support system gets left behind. Unless you are incredibly wealthy, and can afford to bring parents or grandparents with, or hire a live in nanny, it's just too difficult.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • I am a Mexican, grandson of immigrants from Europe. One of the things I don't understand about the USA is how easy people seem to relocate over there. It seems to be most easy to go at age 18 and study the university in a city nobody knows you. Then, you get a job at a different state. Two, three times, you move state because you got a job. Then, you settle... And having a family means it's harder to move (although by far not unheard of).

      My grandparents moved quite a bit – Out of Europe due to poverty

  • I blame us Gen X'ers for coddling kids too much. I'm not sure why we think kids will want to stand on their own if they are given everything they need or want as dependents..

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Higaran ( 835598 )
      I get that kids are coddled too much, but seriously, I don't see a lot of 25-35 year old executives of major corporations helping to make life easier for their generation. depending on what you read I was born in 1981 so I'm on the start of the millennial generation, I don't see anyone my age in any kind of real power, or trying to help make life easier, with maybe a few exceptions. Basically everyone is trying to milk everyone else form as much money as possible and no one gives a shit, and keeps blami

  • Less favorable lending rates? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:46PM (#53858343)
    Most of the stuff mentioned I can agree with. But less favorable lending rates? Only a Millennial ignorant of history would think that. Mortgage interest rates are the lowest they've been in 60 years [awealthofcommonsense.com]. My generation (gen-x) had to deal with mortgage interest rates double what they are today. My parents had to deal with 17% interest rates. You have to go all the way back to 1955 [fedprimerate.com] to see interest rates as favorable as they are today.

    With a 4% interest rate on a 30 year mortgage, 42% of your payments over the life of the loan are interest.
    With a 8% interest rate, 62% of your payments are interest.
    With a 17% interest rate, 81% of your payments are interest.

    For just about anyone alive today, there has never been a better time to get a mortgage to buy a home.

    • Re:Less favorable lending rates? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheSync ( 5291 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @03:29PM (#53858833) Journal

      Mortgage interest rates are the lowest they've been in 60 years

      True, but inflation was higher (inflating away the principle cost to the borrower) and also real home prices were rising faster (keeping borrowers from being underwater, thus always having a re-fi or selling option).

    • Re:Less favorable lending rates? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13, 2017 @03:29PM (#53858837)

      It was determined during the late 1980's and early 1990's that an artificially lowered prime rate would spur the economy better than a "normal" or "fair" prime rate. Why?

      1) Lowered mortgage interest. People who are in debt can afford to stay in debt. Banks love this because they basically own you if you're in debt to them.
      2) Lowered savings interest. People who aren't in debt are getting screwed. Banks love this because it encourages everyone else to spend themselves into slavery to the banks.

      So now everyone just pisses away their money as fast as they can because there's no reason not to. And when shit goes wrong, there's nothing left to save anyone, not even the banks.

      Fucking genius.

      • Re:Less favorable lending rates? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Enigma2175 ( 179646 ) on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @02:05AM (#53863401) Homepage Journal

        It was determined during the late 1980's and early 1990's that an artificially lowered prime rate would spur the economy better than a "normal" or "fair" prime rate.

        What? Rates were pretty high in the late 80s and early 90s, in 1990 the average prime rate was over 10%. (source) [infoplease.com] It's hard to pay off the mortgage on your $300,000 house when the first $30k goes to interest each year.

        1) Lowered mortgage interest. People who are in debt can afford to stay in debt. Banks love this because they basically own you if you're in debt to them.

        On the other hand, people can afford to pay off their mortgage because they aren't paying so much in interest. Banks don't own you just because you decided to take their money. Nobody forces you to take a mortgage, if you want to save up or get private loans to finance your home nobody is stopping you.

        2) Lowered savings interest. People who aren't in debt are getting screwed. Banks love this because it encourages everyone else to spend themselves into slavery to the banks.

        Spend themselves into slavery? Why would they spend themselves into slavery (and why would they be slaves to the bank if they aren't in debt?) just because fixed-income instruments aren't giving a good return? Wouldn't prudent people just reallocate their savings to other investments, like real estate or stocks?

        Look, most of the large banks are pretty evil and do some incredibly shady shit but for the most part lending money to consumers isn't on that list. If you want to rail against the banks, at least educate yourself on the more egregious shenanigans they have pulled instead of whining about having to pay back money that YOU chose to borrow or claim to be a slave to the bank because you have no debt.

    • "Only a Millennial ignorant of history would think that."

      Ask your average GenX about why the Savings and Loan crisis kneecapped normal growth, or your average Boomer why economic policy in the 70s was so destructive to domestic production, and I'm willing to bet you will get less of a response than asking an 'Ignorant Milennial' about what happened 9 years ago,, since they just lived/ are living through it. The people who turned the wheels that caused the fuck-ups don't like talking about why it broke, a

  • https://chrome.google.com/webs... [google.com]

    please stop the bullshit.

  • The End of Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)

    by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:51PM (#53858391) Homepage Journal
    Freedom in America is largely defined by Economic Freedom. Without the ability to obtain a disposable income, Millennials are unable to live their life on their terms. They are effectively Wage Slaves, shackled to and controlled by Debt and most of them will prove powerless to overcome that slavery. We will see the middle class die within the next decade, and with it, the rise of chronic underemployment, and the end of the nuclear family as multi-family and multi-generational households will become the new norm

  • moving simply sucks

  • Harsh Rental Practices (Score:5, Informative)

    by eepok ( 545733 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @03:08PM (#53858603) Homepage
    My wife and I make over $100k together and we can't yet afford a 2b/2ba condo in Orange County, CA within a 30 minute commute to work. That kind of place with a garage goes for ~$500k. Thus, if you don't want PMI, you need to have $100k in cash on hand PLUS financial buffer and moving costs. So we rent. We pay ~$1,845/mo for our 1b/1ba. And there's a catch-- lease renewal increases are around $50, but the increase is lower than the ~$90/mo annual market rental increase over the last few years. So, if you want to move, you're almost guaranteed to be moving into a more expensive apartment.

    And there still isn't any inventory to buy. There are too many people buying to turn around and immediately rent out those places.

    So, despite out income and despite our savings, we're staying put.

    • Re:Harsh Rental Practices (Score:5, Informative)

      by TheSync ( 5291 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @03:26PM (#53858799) Journal

      And there still isn't any inventory to buy.

      Did you vote for a politician who promised to lower regulatory barriers to home building? I'm sure the Libertarian Party of Orange County [lpoc.org] would welcome you, because I can assure you that Democrats and Republicans there are both against any new home building.

      Irvine City Council candidate Courtney Santos [wordpress.com] said:

      Increase supply of housing
      Dialogue with developers and UCI to better understand barriers to building housing that they have experienced
      Ensure efficiency in the permitting process
      Be mindful that developers will pass on fees incurred during permit process to renters or buyers
      Remove legal or zoning barriers to affordable, sustainable microhousing and tiny houses
      Support zoning more high-density areas to allow modern solutions for living spaces for single professionals and students, such as micro-apartments and studios
      Deregulate duplexes - for example, why can't property owners determine for themselves how much floor space to devote to a second unit? "The floor area of a second unit shall not exceed 30 percent of the floor area of the existing living area" (Zoning Ch. 3-26-3).
      Encourage dialogue about innovative housing practices like co-housing and cooperatives
      Orange County in general has a massive housing shortage (estimates vary; 40,000 to 100,000 more units may be needed countywide). Irvine is one of the cities with highest demand.

  • The Housing Supply is TOO DAMN LOW! (Score:3)

    by TheSync ( 5291 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @03:19PM (#53858733) Journal

    The BIGGEST problem in the US is the over-regulation of residential building in the most productive cities that keeps the housing supply artificially low.

    In the study "Why Do Cities Matter? Local Growth and Aggregate Growth" [nber.org], the authors show that lowering regulatory constraints on housing in high productivity cities like New York, San Francisco and San Jose to the level of the median city would expand their work force and increase U.S. GDP by 9.5%. That is three or more years of current economic growth rates "for free".

    Increasing density in these cities is simple. For example, see these reasonable designs [businessinsider.com] for enhanced density while maintaining green space and livability. You don't have to be like Toronto with 37 residential towers over 46 stories. You can achieve a density of 100,000 people per square mile using a mix of buildings up to 8 stories tall.

    To see how screwed-up things have become, 40% of buildings in Manhattan would be illegal to build [nytimes.com] today, because of height, too many residential units, or too much mixed-use between residential and commercial.

    More people living in the most productive cities will also increase the tax bases there, allowing for more investment in transport, education, etc. However transport needs would decline (or at least stay the same) if most new residents live inside these cities instead of the distant exurbs.

  • Harder Than It Sounds (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tempest_2084 ( 605915 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @03:24PM (#53858779)
    I've been trying to move to CA from the Midwest for years now (my wife's family is in CA and she needs to take care of an aging parent), but it's tough since no company is willing to pay for a move unless you have a very specific skill they're looking for that they can't find locally (I'm very good at my job, but I'm nothing special as far as skills go). Trying to interview long distance is also difficult, even with things like Skype (assuming they even will do it). Our current options appear to be either A. Blow our life savings on a move across country and hope I can get a job before we go broke, or B. Find a company that is willing to hire long distance and hope they don't decide to lay me off before our finances recover from the move. As much as my wife wants to be back in CA, she won't risk our future on it.

    I've always been curious about how people are able to jump from one side of the country to the other and support themselves with no problems. Maybe it's because the people who do it are usually young with no real possessions to weigh them down? At my age (40), the risks start outweighing the benefits in many cases.

    • Re:Harder Than It Sounds (Score:4, Interesting)

      by boskone ( 234014 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @04:24PM (#53859397)

      Can you go ahead and couch surf, get established, and then move the family out after 6 months? Yeah it sucks.

      In fact, could you live with your inlaws for 6 months (maybe just you), while you get established in a new job, then when you feel your employment is steady (you know the politics/etc) move your family out and get your own place together?

      • Re:Harder Than It Sounds (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Tempest_2084 ( 605915 ) on Monday February 13, 2017 @04:37PM (#53859561)
        That's a plan we've actually discussed. The problem is that we'd have to rent a place to put all of our stuff as her house is small (my wife doesn't work so we'd have to sell the house before we moved) and her mom is sort of in the middle of nowhere as far as IT jobs go (Antelope Valley area) so it would be a lot of commuting if I managed to snag a job somewhere. Still, that might be our best bet if push came to shove.

        Also, to be honest, I'm approaching that age where changing jobs becomes a bit riskier. My current job is cushy and fairly safe (plus there's a pension I'm invested in), so I'm a bit scared to throw that all away for something that could crumble after a few months. Then again, we do stupid things all the time for love.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

          (plus there's a pension I'm invested in),

          A someone who will never see a pension and expects not to get any social security when I am eligible to retire in 35 years(assuming it doesn't go up to 70 by then) and must therefore rely solely on savings and a 401k, do not give up that pension. I would kill for a pension. Literally. Just point me at the target and they're gone.

          Ok, a little hyperbole there. But seriously, I'm even jealous even of my coworkers who are all 30 years older than me that had their pensions frozen at a couple hundred dollar

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Quirkz ( 1206400 )

      I think you exaggerate the cost of moving. I suppose if you're assuming you're going to hire movers to do it all for you, that is indeed expensive. That's also why most employers aren't offering it.

      It's much more affordable if you go for one of the options where you pack and they ship in a semi trailer (ABF U-pack is just one example; Pods may be another if they're still around) I think you could move the whole family's house full of stuff for a grand. As a single guy I moved my stuff cross-country

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close