millenials are effectively priced out of most major city housing markets

Not what I remember wrote:

Boomer is right. Right out of college, I moved to Boston in 1986. I rented a room in a house, owned by a 28 year old guy and paid him 400 a month, under the table so he wouldn't have to pay taxes. He was an engineer at Raytheon, and made about 35K a year. He rented rooms to me and another guy, and no way he could have made the mortgage without roommates and his daddy cosigning. He purchased his house in 1985 for about $150,000-and as I recall had a 8 or 9 percent mortgage. It was a three bedroom, 1600 SF suburban ranch in Marlborough-nothing special. A studio apartment in Framingham was $650 at the same time. I grossed 2K a month, so when I rented the apartment, over 40% of my take home pay went to rent. A studio downtown would have been well over a grand.

I read many articles at the time, bemoaning the fact that 20 somethings still lived with their parents. My parents lived 2000 miles away, so I was stuck living on my own. Nothing's changed in the last 30 years. It's expensive to live in big cities.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say 23 year olds are guaranteed 3 bedrooms and a yard. Live cheap, save money, and you'll get your turn. This ain't 1948, and you didn't march across Europe or sail across the Pacific.

deradoodledoo wrote:

Math here. You are simply wrong.

Median House price in Boston:

1983: 82,000 .

2018: 580,000

1983 median house price adjusted for inflation: $207,000

You were only off by about 200%

Boomers=Source of ALL USA Problems wrote:

^This is a bunch of Boomer BS propaganda. If Boomers had actually been paying attention to running the country, instead of running 100 miles per week to get 30th in some meaningless, no-name road race then we wouldn't be in the mess we now are as a country. They also wouldn't all be on their 3rd and 4th marriages if they had a little less running and a little more balance in their lives.

Boomers are a worthless generation that has done nothing but destroy this country and continually take credit for things they did not do. They have run BOTH political parties into the ground and are responsible for running the economy into the ground and creating a mountain of debt by consistently voting for generous entitlements for themselves while simultaneously refusing to pay (i.e. Raise taxes) for those entitlements.

They claim they have benefited us all by giving us cultural gifts--by starting movements that gave us fast running times, equal rights for blacks, women, gay folks, by giving us modern music (like rock & roll) through their pioneering efforts, by giving us modern computer science, and through things like iconic movies.

But a closer look at these claims reveals their lies. As a starting point, please take note that it is widely agreed that Boomers were born 1946-1964. This means that the oldest members of this generation turned 30 in 1976 and, thus, they have been running the show (...or they should've been instead of running 100 miles per week) in the US since the mid to late 1970s.

The major civil rights leaders for black equal rights in the 60s (Martin Luther King, Jr., Medger Evers, Rosa Parks, Ceaser Chavez, Fred Shuttlesworth, Jon Lewis, Malcom X, and many more) were all born in the 20s to early 40s. But you know who is a boomer? Al Sharpton.

The major players in the second wave feminist movement (Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Mary King, Alice Rossi) of the 60s were all born in 20s - early 40s as well. Of course, this means the women who fought for basic equal rights (like the right to vote) were even older. These brave women were not boomers. But Boomers are the leaders of the disgusting mess that is third wave feminism...

The folks that were the pioneers in equal rights for gay people (Harvey Milk, Del Martin, Phyllis Lyon) also not Boomers.

Who is widely acknowledged to be the father of modern computer science? Alan Turing. A gay non-Boomer.

Let's examine the music claims...Jimmi Hendrix? ‪Jim Morrison‬? ‪The Beatles‬? ‪The Rolling Stones‬? ‪Bob Dylan‬? Yup, all non-Boomers.

How about movies, directors, actors, etc?... Stanley Kubrick? Harrison Ford? George Lucas? Robert De Niro? Al Pacino? Robert Duval? Martin Scorsese? Clint Eastwood? George Romero? Francis Ford Coppala? Chevy Chase? Steve Martin? J.J. Abrams? The entire Monty Python crew? Yup, all non-boomers.

To summarize, Boomers frequently claim that their generation was responsible for major cultural and art movements but it's totally not true. Boomers are parasites and leeches....and I am assume some are good people. We should build a wall on our southern boarder, strip the boomers of their ill-gotten entitlements, and ship them down to old Mexico. All of our problems would be solved. Let's make America great again!

30 year old west coast wrote:

Boomers=Source of ALL USA Problems wrote:

^This is a bunch of Boomer BS propaganda. If Boomers had actually been paying attention to running the country, instead of running 100 miles per week to get 30th in some meaningless, no-name road race then we wouldn't be in the mess we now are as a country. They also wouldn't all be on their 3rd and 4th marriages if they had a little less running and a little more balance in their lives.

Boomers are a worthless generation that has done nothing but destroy this country and continually take credit for things they did not do. They have run BOTH political parties into the ground and are responsible for running the economy into the ground and creating a mountain of debt by consistently voting for generous entitlements for themselves while simultaneously refusing to pay (i.e. Raise taxes) for those entitlements.

They claim they have benefited us all by giving us cultural gifts--by starting movements that gave us fast running times, equal rights for blacks, women, gay folks, by giving us modern music (like rock & roll) through their pioneering efforts, by giving us modern computer science, and through things like iconic movies.

But a closer look at these claims reveals their lies. As a starting point, please take note that it is widely agreed that Boomers were born 1946-1964. This means that the oldest members of this generation turned 30 in 1976 and, thus, they have been running the show (...or they should've been instead of running 100 miles per week) in the US since the mid to late 1970s.

The major civil rights leaders for black equal rights in the 60s (Martin Luther King, Jr., Medger Evers, Rosa Parks, Ceaser Chavez, Fred Shuttlesworth, Jon Lewis, Malcom X, and many more) were all born in the 20s to early 40s. But you know who is a boomer? Al Sharpton.

The major players in the second wave feminist movement (Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Mary King, Alice Rossi) of the 60s were all born in 20s - early 40s as well. Of course, this means the women who fought for basic equal rights (like the right to vote) were even older. These brave women were not boomers. But Boomers are the leaders of the disgusting mess that is third wave feminism...

The folks that were the pioneers in equal rights for gay people (Harvey Milk, Del Martin, Phyllis Lyon) also not Boomers.

Who is widely acknowledged to be the father of modern computer science? Alan Turing. A gay non-Boomer.

Let's examine the music claims...Jimmi Hendrix? ‪Jim Morrison‬? ‪The Beatles‬? ‪The Rolling Stones‬? ‪Bob Dylan‬? Yup, all non-Boomers.

How about movies, directors, actors, etc?... Stanley Kubrick? Harrison Ford? George Lucas? Robert De Niro? Al Pacino? Robert Duval? Martin Scorsese? Clint Eastwood? George Romero? Francis Ford Coppala? Chevy Chase? Steve Martin? J.J. Abrams? The entire Monty Python crew? Yup, all non-boomers.

To summarize, Boomers frequently claim that their generation was responsible for major cultural and art movements but it's totally not true. Boomers are parasites and leeches....and I am assume some are good people. We should build a wall on our southern boarder, strip the boomers of their ill-gotten entitlements, and ship them down to old Mexico. All of our problems would be solved. Let's make America great again!

Absolutely nails it.

30 year old millennial who graduated around 2008 (yes, after the big crash and I'll never forget it) from a 'good' public university with a STEM degree, now making around 80k per year. Live happily alone in a small 1BR apartment, drive an old economy car, could absolutely not afford buying a house or condo or studio in the city where I live right now. I'm probably doing better than most, but ain't exactly killing it or anything.

Boomers rode the coattails of America at it's peak to great wealth. The party is now over and American is on the decline. The boomers hardly notice though because all they see is their deep bank accounts owing to massive stock market and savings account appreciating during their lives, appreciating property values, and gold-plated healthcare paid for by others. The rest of us are questioning the whole arrangement....marriage, home ownership, "paying your dues" until you are an obese 60 year old office plodder. We have no reason to believe in the life that our elder unhappy, fat, technology-illiterate boomers led. As quoted poster suggests...it's all a lie.

Personally I would not touch buying real estate right now with a 10 foot pole. When the boomers start dying of self-inflicted diabetes, their neighborhood goes to snot thanks to self-driving cars, and interest rates rise to a healthy level, there will be plenty of real estate buying opportunities. The bigger issue though is that the entire country is on the decline (under the oversight of the boomers). Massive unfunded pensions going to lazy dumb govt workers, the rise of more competitive, more educated economies in Asia and elsewhere, everyone looking for a handout. When the turds hit the fan, I'm hoping to be in a developing country such as Mexico, Vietnam, or Kenya where the costs are cheaper, weather warmer, futures are brighter, and parasitic American boomers are nonexistent.

derpes wrote:

" Buying a home isn't an easy thing, and if you really love the idea of living in a big city (which is highly overrated in my estimation), then that is what you have to deal with. There are innumerable places to live in this country that are affordable that don't lie on the coasts."

Like has been mentioned before, millennials graduate college carrying a much higher debt load requiring them to seek higher paying jobs in the city. Plus a lot of those jobs ONLY exist in the cities, and not the cheap one either.

My job for example is pretty much only done in the most expensive cities in the world. (LA, New york, SF, Vancouver, London, Sydney, Singapore)

It's not really a realistic option to live in Podunkska, Ohio if there are zero jobs in my trade. If i wanted to move to Podunkska, Ohio I would have to take an entry level job in a different field with a 500-800% pay cut or else go back to college or trade school, which is really difficult for people who ALREADY have huge loans that are due.

It seems like the middle class jobs with low education requirements are few and far between these days. Jobs seem to be either no skill/no pay, or high skill/high pay. So once you've put 10 years in an industry gaining the skills required for high pay, it's hard to successfully change careers as would be required to live in Podunkska, Ohio.

Totally agree with the home size issue. Part of the problem is what the market is offering. there seems to be so few smaller houses on the market that they aren't usually a great deal either. When's the last time you saw an 800-1200 sf home being built?

And in the cities where the tech jobs are, the 650 sf apartments are $300-400k, so not exactly an issue of people buying more home than they need.

The ugly American wrote:

I see what you are saying, but NO it is not hard to change careers to live in Columbus, Ohio or Madison, WI or Ann Arbor, MI. It sounds like you have some very specialized and in demand skills. My Midwestern brain cannot really fathom what that might be, but I will say that if you wanted to, you could easily transition to becoming a tax preparer, a high school teacher, a credit analyst, a sales rep, a pharmacy tech, a production supervisor, a retail manager, a landscaper, a pharma rep, a store manager, ETC.

I throw those out there not because you might want to do them, but you COULD do them with minimal additional training over your apparent bachelors degree. You could live in many less expensive cities in America and you could do those jobs and you could buy a house. That is a fact because millions of Americans of all ages do it.

If you pursued a career in something that only takes place in the most expensive cities in the world, I trust that you were forward-thinking enough to know that long before you graduated and therefore you knew before you pursued it that you would not be buying a house? Since you knew about this before college started, I am going to assume that you had four years to adjust to the idea?

Now you can go back to your regularly scheduled whatever the fock it is you do. I feel bad for the people who truly cannot afford a nice apartment or a house because their skills won't permit it. Are we supposed to feel bad for those who take on a career that ONLY takes place in cities over 5 million people? As if you were forced into this AND you also are not capable of making a change ... due to the way the work world functions?

derpedo wrote:

Not what I remember wrote:

Boomer is right. Right out of college, I moved to Boston in 1986. I rented a room in a house, owned by a 28 year old guy and paid him 400 a month, under the table so he wouldn't have to pay taxes. He was an engineer at Raytheon, and made about 35K a year. He rented rooms to me and another guy, and no way he could have made the mortgage without roommates and his daddy cosigning. He purchased his house in 1985 for about $150,000-and as I recall had a 8 or 9 percent mortgage. It was a three bedroom, 1600 SF suburban ranch in Marlborough-nothing special. A studio apartment in Framingham was $650 at the same time. I grossed 2K a month, so when I rented the apartment, over 40% of my take home pay went to rent. A studio downtown would have been well over a grand.

I read many articles at the time, bemoaning the fact that 20 somethings still lived with their parents. My parents lived 2000 miles away, so I was stuck living on my own. Nothing's changed in the last 30 years. It's expensive to live in big cities.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say 23 year olds are guaranteed 3 bedrooms and a yard. Live cheap, save money, and you'll get your turn. This ain't 1948, and you didn't march across Europe or sail across the Pacific.

so just to clarify...your premise is that living in major cities 30 years ago was just as expensive as it is today?

this is what is hilarious about the Boomers, their persistence. They have a mistaken world view and they are sticking to it. 'It was just as expensive to live in Boston in the early 80's as it is now'......presented with facts that show this is blatantly wrong........repeats premise "It was just as expensive to live in Boston in the early 80's as it is today."

Maybe of you keep repeating it enough times it will be true.

Dril wrote:

jamin wrote:

How can supply possibly keep up with demand if every acre is already being used for a house or business or public park?

House ownership is a zero-sum game once there are no more forests to clear cut in the city limits. Everything that gets built after that is a townhome or condo.

Youre dumb and compleltley unfamiliar with the housing poltics in these areas.

The short answer to fixing housing supply is you take old dilapdated homes, tear them down and build regular non luxury apartments. Current home owners and the politicians in Boston and its suburbs (most likely Boomers) block these types of projects for fear of poor people moving in (NIMBYism). Instead they tear down an old 1500 sq ft cape that could sell for 700k in a nice town and build two high end luxury condos that sell for 1.5 mil a piece.

In Boston when they grow the skyline and replace old brownstones they build new high rises with apts ranging from $6 mil to $40 mil (1 penthouse) that will be at best 25% occupied and will be sold to the a Chinese and russians so they can get their kids Visas for college and/or move their money out their countries.

These expansions and opposition to middle class housing are all driven by the boomers, liberal and conservative alike. I realize you hate liberals jamin but, as soon as you realize that divisive politics is what the BOOMERS want and is their last parting gift to us along with a humongous national debt, growing entitlements, and failing infrastructure, we can start working together as a generation to ship the boomers to mexico like a previous poster suggested.