will the Millenials ruin the housing market?

[tdelamater]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]It’s funny how the boomers were lazy/freeloader/protesters in the late 60’s/ early 70’s, then the entitled greedy “me” generation in the 80’s, and are now the hardworking wise generation.[/quote]

That, or we’re just setting the bar lower.

[Coronita]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]It’s funny how the boomers were lazy/freeloader/protesters in the late 60’s/ early 70’s, then the entitled greedy “me” generation in the 80’s, and are now the hardworking wise generation.

Seems to me that the Gen-X’ers and the Gen-Y “millenials” are on similar arcs.[/quote]

Nope. Boomers are pretty bad too. I think the last generation of respectable work ethics and values were Traditionalists (1927-45), with early boomers around 46+-5 years better than boomers

[afx114]

Speaking of Millenials, a good article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/the-entrepreneurial-generation.html

All this is why, unlike those of previous youth cultures, the hipster ethos contains no element of rebellion, rejection or dissent — remarkably so, given that countercultural opposition would seem to be essential to the very idea of youth culture. That may in turn be why the hipster has proved to be so durable. The heyday of the hippies lasted for all of about two years. The punks and slackers held the stage for little more than half a decade each. That’s the nature of rebellion: it needs to keep on happening. The punks rejected the mainstream, but they also rejected the previous rejection, hippiedom itself — which, by the late ’70s, was something that old people (i.e. 28-year-olds) were into. But hipsters, who’ve been around for 15 years or so, appear to have become a durable part of our cultural configuration.

Or maybe not. These movements always have an economic substrate. The beatniks and hippies — love, ecstasy, transcendence, utopia — were products of the postwar boom. The punks and slackers and devotees of hip-hop — rage, angst, nihilism, withdrawal — arose within the long stagnation that lasted from the early ’70s to the early ’90s. The hipsters were born in the dot-com boom and flourished in the real estate bubble.

Affability is a commercial virtue, but it is also the affect of people who feel themselves to be living in a fundamentally agreeable society. Already, the makings of a new youth culture may be locking into place.

Signed,
Ex-hipster turned home owner

[sdduuuude]

[quote=patientrenter]The title is very telling. Apparently a lower demand for owner occupied housing – in other words, lower house prices – is considered “ruin” for the housing market.

In reality, the more affordable housing becomes, the better for the economy and for society at large. Would we cheer for higher oil prices? Or for higher bread prices? Housing is just a simple consumer good, and cheaper (for the same quality) is better.[/quote]

Well said. Furthermore, if housing does become more affordable, then those same Millenials may start rethinking their strategy as buying becomes more cost effective than renting.

Yes, even who value education, people and leisure more than other generations will still do the basic personal financial analysis of “rent vs. buy”, especially when they have a family – and I’m right in saying young people are still having sex, yes ?

And thus, the market equillibrates …

[scaredyclassic]

The most irritating hipstwr movie about Reproductive ambivalence of all time is the future by Miranda July. But her new book, it chooses you, is awesome! She writes a book w photos of people she meets thru pennysaver ads. Really great.

[briansd1]

the marriage age has been creeping up.

in 1960, 20/22 yo was normal to get married. Seems awfully young to get married and have kids.

Marriage rate is at a low.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/marriage-rate-falls-to-record-low-in-u-s-pew-says/

[an]

[quote=briansd1]the marriage age has been creeping up.

in 1960, 20/22 yo was normal to get married. Seems awfully young to get married and have kids.

Marriage rate is at a low.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/marriage-rate-falls-to-record-low-in-u-s-pew-says/%5B/quote%5D
That’s when women are most fertile. So, scientifically, it’s not young at all. Getting married at 30+ is old, which is why a lot of people 30+ are having a hard time conceiving.

[briansd1]

[quote=AN] That’s when women are most fertile. So, scientifically, it’s not young at all. Getting married at 30+ is old, which is why a lot of people 30+ are having a hard time conceiving.[/quote]

Yeah, physically fertile but emotional airheads.

Considering that you can’t get an advanced degree until at least mid-twenties, and you need training, work and life experience after that, marriage below 30yo seems unadvisable to me.

Seems like the whole concept of conception is overrated. That’s what adoption is for.

[briansd1]

I have a theory that social media makes getting sex easier.

In the past, you had to go out and meet.

Now, you can go online and meet a friends with benefits, not strings attached.

The sexes are more egalitarian these days and if you pay half/half for everything, even in marriage, then what’s the point of getting married?

[scaredyclassic]

Under a feats of strength in a strongman chat group, there were listed many amazing feats of lifting pulling and carrying.

One response that stood out;

staying married.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=AN]That’s when women are most fertile. So, scientifically, it’s not young at all. Getting married at 30+ is old, which is why a lot of people 30+ are having a hard time conceiving.[/quote]
Most women are still quite fertile throughout their 20s and into their early 30s. Even 35-39 the monthly fertility rate is still 10%, although the risks of chromosomal defects do rise.

So, “scientifically”, there aren’t major disadvantages to starting a family at 29 compared to 22 unless you really want 4+ children. There’s actually a lot of good evidence that a later start to having kids provides a lot of advantages to those children, although of course correlation is not necessarily causation.

[UCGal]

[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=AN]That’s when women are most fertile. So, scientifically, it’s not young at all. Getting married at 30+ is old, which is why a lot of people 30+ are having a hard time conceiving.[/quote]
Most women are still quite fertile throughout their 20s and into their early 30s. Even 35-39 the monthly fertility rate is still 10%, although the risks of chromosomal defects do rise.

So, “scientifically”, there aren’t major disadvantages to starting a family at 29 compared to 22 unless you really want 4+ children. There’s actually a lot of good evidence that a later start to having kids provides a lot of advantages to those children, although of course correlation is not necessarily causation.[/quote]

You marry when you find the right person to marry. You know, love… compatibility… right place/right time. Not because you’ve reached a certain age.

For me it was later. I married at 38, popped out the first kid at 39, and the second at 41. Neither has any chromosonal defects. Though they both have mastered being annoying.

And back to the OP topic… I’m at the tippy tail end of the boomers. My husband is a full blown boomer. Something my husband and I had in common – we both had to come up with 20% downpayment before we bought… so it was late 20’s for us (separately) before we bought homes. Most of our friends who were buying were in the same boat – not buying till late 20’s or early 30’s.

The downpayment requirements that used to be more common delayed me and my friends from buying sooner.

[sdduuuude]

So many good things about that post, UCGal !

[scaredyclassic]

Ucgal I respectfully dissent. People marry when they’re ready. The persons rightness fluctuates according to readiness. There is no such thing as finding the right person. You become the right person.

[an]

[quote=poorgradstudent]So, “scientifically”, there aren’t major disadvantages to starting a family at 29 compared to 22 unless you really want 4+ children. There’s actually a lot of good evidence that a later start to having kids provides a lot of advantages to those children, although of course correlation is not necessarily causation.[/quote]
That’s a huge advantage. If you want to have a lot of kids, the sooner you start, the better. I didn’t say women are not fertile at 30. I’m just saying women MORE fertile at 20. Am I wrong for saying women are MOST fertile around 20? This is the chart I find regarding age and fertility: http://www.babycentre.co.uk/i/preconception/infertilitygraph.gif

[Author]

Posts