- This topic has 8 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 10 months ago by
Bugs.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 13, 2007 at 9:57 PM #8394February 13, 2007 at 10:06 PM #45328
Anonymous
GuestArithmetic error:
If our housing density ‘should be’ 2.96 folks per housing unit (1970 standard), we have 24.8MM excess housing units (not 14.7MM), today.Thus, we have an overhang of 9-25MM housing units, requiring that no new housing units be built for 5-12 years.
Gulp.
February 13, 2007 at 10:10 PM #45329no_such_reality
ParticipantJG, good work, one thought, families and singles are much more fragmented now than in 1970s.
People stay single much longer than previously, well into prior adulthood.
Families also are shrinking, less children per couple.
I’d guess that the divorce is higher now than in the 1970s since women have more economic options.
All these things point to a lower capita per unit.
February 13, 2007 at 11:14 PM #45330Guestno_such_reality:
Don’t you think that some of those trends are offset by large Mexican immigrant families buying homes? Also, I have seen many Asian families (growing demographic) who bring in extended family, parents etc. from places like China. Not trying to stereotype here, but these are trends that even the builders have taken into account when offering homes.
February 13, 2007 at 11:56 PM #45335PerryChase
ParticipantAs always, great info, JG.
no_such_reality, we should also keep in mind children living with and taking care of elderly parents.
February 14, 2007 at 8:13 AM #45346Guestnsr, you are right on all of your counts. But, my sense is that the loose money and increased consumption of ’81-’06 accelerated the fragmentation of the family.
I think that times are going to be tough, given the huge household debt overhang (e.g., today’s flat consumer spending numbers for January). As consumption slows, incomes will lower. As incomes lower, families will pool their resources and revert to historical norms of taking care of their parents (and not shipping them off to nursing homes), not getting that divorce (there will be fewer jobs, so women will be less apt to divorce and live on their own), etc.
We are going to have a huge inventory of unfinished homes and buildings that will have no use given our changed economic situation. They will be an eyesore.
It’s going to be different. But, I think it’s going to be a ‘better’ different, once we purge our society of its excesses.
February 14, 2007 at 8:19 AM #45347(former)FormerSanDiegan
ParticipantThe reality is that, according to these statistics we have 2.38 people per housing unit. These may be flawed in undercounting illegal immigrants, etc. But these are the numbers. Assuming that they should revert to what they were before consumption spiked may be flawed.
Assuming that the “proper” number should be 2.96 is equivalent to relocating about 20% of the population. So, what you are telling us is that 60 million people living in this country are going to move in with other people.
As usual your analysis is solid. I just don’t buy the premise in this case.
February 14, 2007 at 8:38 AM #453484plexowner
ParticipantI am expecting a trend towards higher household occupancy.
This will be part of America’s lower standard of living as globalization takes the global wage to less than $10/hour.
Both house prices and rents will decline as household occupancy increases and the supply of ‘excess’ housing grows.
February 14, 2007 at 8:49 AM #45349Bugs
ParticipantA 5-year breather in new home construction is common during economic downswings. Very few homes got built between 1991 and 1998 when compared to the periods before and after.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.