Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Harvard study confuses 'ready' with 'financially capable'   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, loan debt  
•       •       •

4325 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jun 2014 at 12:40 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-26 08:29:22 AM  
News in May: Millenial unemployment rate is pushing 16%

News today: they want to buy houses

I'm ready to drive a z8 and have a hot night with Rachel McAdams, but that doesn't mean it's likely to happen anytime soon. Clueless study is clueless.
 
2014-06-26 08:34:22 AM  
The leading edge of this closely watched generation will soon reach their 30s, the age range in which household formation ramps up

When did living with your parents until you are 30 become the statues quo?  Hell, my son is 16, and he's only allowed to come home for the summer and spring/winter breaks.
 
2014-06-26 12:14:08 PM  
This read like satire.

If you want us to buy homes, better do something about the lack of jobs for graduates, and student loan debt.

/We joke that we already have a mortgage with my loans.
//half joking
 
2014-06-26 12:52:10 PM  

whistleridge: News in May: Millenial unemployment rate is pushing 16%

News today: they want to buy houses

I'm ready to drive a z8 and have a hot night with Rachel McAdams, but that doesn't mean it's likely to happen anytime soon. Clueless study is clueless.


Why can't the 84% that are employed buy houses?
 
2014-06-26 01:05:19 PM  

whistleridge: News in May: Millenial unemployment rate is pushing 16%

News today: they want to buy houses

I'm ready to drive a z8 and have a hot night with Rachel McAdams, but that doesn't mean it's likely to happen anytime soon. Clueless study is clueless.


16% is a fairly small number.  Not optimal, not even good, but not exactly a majority.  I'm sure a lot of those who got jobs and started careers are ready to buy houses.
 
2014-06-26 01:09:10 PM  

babygoat: Why can't the 84% that are employed buy houses?


Well...

1. Because they are far and away the most underpaid age cohort
2. They're averaging something like $29k in student loan debt
3. They already can't afford cars
4. They're not averaging a median-wage income until 30 or later
5. Average rent is $1000+/month, but the average mortgage is $900/month (ie, it is far cheaper to rent with 2-3 roommates than to buy)

Translation: by and large, millenials are underpaid, saddled with huge amounts of debt right out of the gate, have no job security, and can't even afford a car. How on Earth are they supposed to save for a down payment on a home and/or manage a mortgage?

Ours is the first generation since forever that is significantly less well off than our parents at the same age. It isn't even close.
 
2014-06-26 01:10:18 PM  
I didn't realize the Harvard had bought the rights to "The Secret"
 
2014-06-26 01:15:16 PM  

whistleridge: babygoat: Why can't the 84% that are employed buy houses?

Well...

1. Because they are far and away the most underpaid age cohort
2. They're averaging something like $29k in student loan debt
3. They already can't afford cars
4. They're not averaging a median-wage income until 30 or later
5. Average rent is $1000+/month, but the average mortgage is $900/month (ie, it is far cheaper to rent with 2-3 roommates than to buy)

Translation: by and large, millenials are underpaid, saddled with huge amounts of debt right out of the gate, have no job security, and can't even afford a car. How on Earth are they supposed to save for a down payment on a home and/or manage a mortgage?

Ours is the first generation since forever that is significantly less well off than our parents at the same age. It isn't even close.


Funny story...

Pretty much every generation emerging into what the old folks of every age consider adulthood suddenly notices "Damn, we're farked."

The boomers had the OPEC Crisis

Generation X had Reaganomics

Now it's the Millennial turn in the barrel

The hubris of adolescence is the belief that you are the ones who are going to escape the trap that has ensnared everyone else.
 
2014-06-26 01:17:19 PM  

Khellendros: 16% is a fairly small number.  Not optimal, not even good, but not exactly a majority.  I'm sure a lot of those who got jobs and started careers are ready to buy houses.


That depends on a lot of things. For example, would you be willing to fly on a plane that had a 16% chance of exploding mid-flight?

16% unemployment is almost 3 times the general unemployment rate. If you figure that 5 - 10% have just quit looking, and aren't included in that number, and perhaps another 15-20% are underemployed, that number just blew up to 40% or so. That would be a huge hit, and it's entirely plausible.

But even if that 16% is rock solid, and every millenial who is capable of doing so buys a home, that's still a 16% decline in potential sales over previous generations. And even if you say 'well, they're at 5-7% unemployment', it's an 8-10% decline. Given that US housing market is valued at something like $25 TRILLION, an 8 - 16% decline is nothing to sneer at. And if those higher percentages apply, it's an even bigger looming problem.
 
2014-06-26 01:18:21 PM  

whistleridge: Ours is the first generation since forever that is significantly less well off than our parents at the same age. It isn't even close.


raerae1980: If you want us to buy homes, better do something about the lack of jobs for graduates, and student loan debt.


Forget cowbell, needs more bootstrap

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0703.pdf

http://www.thereformedbroker.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Unemploy me nt-by-Age-650x433.png


This discusses some of the issues you bring up whistleridge:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2011/01/05/the-new-pay-ga p- boomers-millennials-salary-recession-raise/
 
2014-06-26 01:27:51 PM  
Unlikely.

bigmouthbarry.com
 
2014-06-26 01:31:18 PM  

whistleridge: Khellendros: 16% is a fairly small number.  Not optimal, not even good, but not exactly a majority.  I'm sure a lot of those who got jobs and started careers are ready to buy houses.

That depends on a lot of things. For example, would you be willing to fly on a plane that had a 16% chance of exploding mid-flight?

16% unemployment is almost 3 times the general unemployment rate. If you figure that 5 - 10% have just quit looking, and aren't included in that number, and perhaps another 15-20% are underemployed, that number just blew up to 40% or so. That would be a huge hit, and it's entirely plausible.

But even if that 16% is rock solid, and every millenial who is capable of doing so buys a home, that's still a 16% decline in potential sales over previous generations. And even if you say 'well, they're at 5-7% unemployment', it's an 8-10% decline. Given that US housing market is valued at something like $25 TRILLION, an 8 - 16% decline is nothing to sneer at. And if those higher percentages apply, it's an even bigger looming problem.


Good points - that had nothing to do with what I said.

16% unemployment for a group trying to get jobs is terrible.  However, it has nothing to do with whether large numbers of that group want to buy houses.  The person I was critiquing was slamming the study because of the 16% number, ignoring the massive number who ARE employed and wanting to buy houses at higher rates than their predecessors.

Yes, it's a problem, but has nothing to do with whether people in that group want to buy houses.
 
2014-06-26 01:34:44 PM  
The real thing they left out was household formation and more importantly type of household formation. Traditionally this ramps up in the 30s, but traditionally people were married in their 20s and had kids on the way in their 30s. That isn't the case anymore. Millenials marry later, less often and want to have children at incredibly lower rates than earlier age cohorts. Not even in the same ballpark. The class of 1992 was surveyed in 1992 and 78% of them wanted kids. The class of 2012 was at 42%. Kids are really what drives building rates. They demand bedrooms, bathrooms, playrooms, yards, good schools, etc. Childless couples don't need to bother, they can drift from rental to rental on a whim or buy very small houses. There's nothing wrong with these choices, but they do have a tremendous effect on the housing industry.
 
2014-06-26 01:38:12 PM  

Khellendros: Yes, it's a problem, but has nothing to do with whether people in that group want to buy houses.


Fair.
 
2014-06-26 01:40:51 PM  

whistleridge: babygoat: Why can't the 84% that are employed buy houses?

Well...

1. Because they are far and away the most underpaid age cohort
2. They're averaging something like $29k in student loan debt
3. They already can't afford cars
4. They're not averaging a median-wage income until 30 or later
5. Average rent is $1000+/month, but the average mortgage is $900/month (ie, it is far cheaper to rent with 2-3 roommates than to buy)

Translation: by and large, millenials are underpaid, saddled with huge amounts of debt right out of the gate, have no job security, and can't even afford a car. How on Earth are they supposed to save for a down payment on a home and/or manage a mortgage?

Ours is the first generation since forever that is significantly less well off than our parents at the same age. It isn't even close.


And like a millennial you believe you were the first to experience it. Sorry, no, the generation before you got there first.
 
2014-06-26 01:45:32 PM  

whistleridge: babygoat: Why can't the 84% that are employed buy houses?

Well...

1. Because they are far and away the most underpaid age cohort
2. They're averaging something like $29k in student loan debt
3. They already can't afford cars
4. They're not averaging a median-wage income until 30 or later
5. Average rent is $1000+/month, but the average mortgage is $900/month (ie, it is far cheaper to rent with 2-3 roommates than to buy)

Translation: by and large, millenials are underpaid, saddled with huge amounts of debt right out of the gate, have no job security, and can't even afford a car. How on Earth are they supposed to save for a down payment on a home and/or manage a mortgage?

Ours is the first generation since forever that is significantly less well off than our parents at the same age. It isn't even close.


Second. The second generation significantly less well off than their parents.

Not that Gen X isn't used to being overlooked in the Boomer-Millenial lovefest, but let's keep the record straight.
 
2014-06-26 01:48:05 PM  

que.guero: whistleridge: babygoat: Why can't the 84% that are employed buy houses?

Well...

1. Because they are far and away the most underpaid age cohort
2. They're averaging something like $29k in student loan debt
3. They already can't afford cars
4. They're not averaging a median-wage income until 30 or later
5. Average rent is $1000+/month, but the average mortgage is $900/month (ie, it is far cheaper to rent with 2-3 roommates than to buy)

Translation: by and large, millenials are underpaid, saddled with huge amounts of debt right out of the gate, have no job security, and can't even afford a car. How on Earth are they supposed to save for a down payment on a home and/or manage a mortgage?

Ours is the first generation since forever that is significantly less well off than our parents at the same age. It isn't even close.

Funny story...

Pretty much every generation emerging into what the old folks of every age consider adulthood suddenly notices "Damn, we're farked."

The boomers had the OPEC Crisis

Generation X had Reaganomics

Now it's the Millennial turn in the barrel

The hubris of adolescence is the belief that you are the ones who are going to escape the trap that has ensnared everyone else.


The OPEC crisis? Seriously? You really think the Boomer "OPEC crisis" remotely compares to what Millennials are going through today?

/not a Millennial.
 
2014-06-26 02:00:23 PM  

Khellendros: whistleridge: Khellendros: 16% is a fairly small number.  Not optimal, not even good, but not exactly a majority.  I'm sure a lot of those who got jobs and started careers are ready to buy houses.

That depends on a lot of things. For example, would you be willing to fly on a plane that had a 16% chance of exploding mid-flight?

16% unemployment is almost 3 times the general unemployment rate. If you figure that 5 - 10% have just quit looking, and aren't included in that number, and perhaps another 15-20% are underemployed, that number just blew up to 40% or so. That would be a huge hit, and it's entirely plausible.

But even if that 16% is rock solid, and every millenial who is capable of doing so buys a home, that's still a 16% decline in potential sales over previous generations. And even if you say 'well, they're at 5-7% unemployment', it's an 8-10% decline. Given that US housing market is valued at something like $25 TRILLION, an 8 - 16% decline is nothing to sneer at. And if those higher percentages apply, it's an even bigger looming problem.

Good points - that had nothing to do with what I said.

16% unemployment for a group trying to get jobs is terrible.  However, it has nothing to do with whether large numbers of that group want to buy houses.  The person I was critiquing was slamming the study because of the 16% number, ignoring the massive number who ARE employed and wanting to buy houses at higher rates than their predecessors.

Yes, it's a problem, but has nothing to do with whether people in that group want to buy houses.


Pardon my Swahili, but it damned well does.

Say you have a stock of 100 houses, a consumer population of 100 people, and a business model based on 95% occupancy. Now you find that 16% of your population can't afford to buy a house. Worse, it might be upwards of 40%.

Yeah, 60-85% is still a big group. But your business plan is *screwed.* You've got a lot of carrying costs for that stock. Additionally, since you're overstocked it's now a buyers' market. The houses you *can* sell, you're going to have to sell for less. A lot less.

And it's even worse than that. Fifteen years ago people were getting bank loans for bigger house than you normally stocked. So you went and built 25 additional houses. You've long since written those off, but you're still carrying that debt.

Now "you" here are the American housing market. Sure, a percentage of Millennials are going to buy a get good deals too. But the housing market is still going to be crippled and you're still going to have a lot of people left renting.

There's no great celebration here. Not until a lot of other factors improve, starting with better wages and less debt so these people can start buying again.
 
2014-06-26 02:02:09 PM  

brimed03: que.guero: whistleridge: babygoat: Why can't the 84% that are employed buy houses?

Well...

1. Because they are far and away the most underpaid age cohort
2. They're averaging something like $29k in student loan debt
3. They already can't afford cars
4. They're not averaging a median-wage income until 30 or later
5. Average rent is $1000+/month, but the average mortgage is $900/month (ie, it is far cheaper to rent with 2-3 roommates than to buy)

Translation: by and large, millenials are underpaid, saddled with huge amounts of debt right out of the gate, have no job security, and can't even afford a car. How on Earth are they supposed to save for a down payment on a home and/or manage a mortgage?

Ours is the first generation since forever that is significantly less well off than our parents at the same age. It isn't even close.

Funny story...

Pretty much every generation emerging into what the old folks of every age consider adulthood suddenly notices "Damn, we're farked."

The boomers had the OPEC Crisis

Generation X had Reaganomics

Now it's the Millennial turn in the barrel

The hubris of adolescence is the belief that you are the ones who are going to escape the trap that has ensnared everyone else.

The OPEC crisis? Seriously? You really think the Boomer "OPEC crisis" remotely compares to what Millennials are going through today?

/not a Millennial.


Acknowledging that things are farked for young adults in unprecedented ways means you then have to start thinking of ways to change the status quo for the better.  Much easier to ignore it by saying every generation has had it tough (because Reaganomics totally makes up for starting your career during the internet boom of the 90's and in no way geometrically increases your security long-term).  

I make more money now than my father ever did, but by my age, he had two kids, two cars and a house and wife. I can barely afford to rent a room in a house.  I'll probably never be able to afford a new home.  But yeah pretend that I'm not typical for my generation and the ass farking of the economy will continue.
 
2014-06-26 02:05:46 PM  

brimed03: Not until a lot of other factors improve, starting with better wages and less debt so these people can start buying again.


It's due to globalization, so there's really nothing to be done. Things will improve in a couple hundred years when the world balances out. In the meantime, get used to poverty.
 
2014-06-26 02:08:48 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

that's a hell of a peak to overcome, especially during a recession
 
2014-06-26 02:22:36 PM  

ReverendJynxed: whistleridge: babygoat: Why can't the 84% that are employed buy houses?

Well...

1. Because they are far and away the most underpaid age cohort
2. They're averaging something like $29k in student loan debt
3. They already can't afford cars
4. They're not averaging a median-wage income until 30 or later
5. Average rent is $1000+/month, but the average mortgage is $900/month (ie, it is far cheaper to rent with 2-3 roommates than to buy)

Translation: by and large, millenials are underpaid, saddled with huge amounts of debt right out of the gate, have no job security, and can't even afford a car. How on Earth are they supposed to save for a down payment on a home and/or manage a mortgage?

Ours is the first generation since forever that is significantly less well off than our parents at the same age. It isn't even close.

And like a millennial you believe you were the first to experience it. Sorry, no, the generation before you got there first.


No, I believe it like someone who knows how to read and synthesize a broad swath of economic indicators and reports.

You disagree? The cite your sources. Otherwise, thank you for your input, but you'll excuse us if we entirely ignore it.
 
2014-06-26 02:23:17 PM  

brimed03: Pardon my Swahili, but it damned well does.

Say you have a stock of 100 houses, a consumer population of 100 people, and a business model based on 95% occupancy. Now you find that 16% of your population can't afford to buy a house. Worse, it might be upwards of 40%.

Yeah, 60-85% is still a big group. But your business plan is *screwed.* You've got a lot of carrying costs for that stock. Additionally, since you're overstocked it's now a buyers' market. The houses you *can* sell, you're going to have to sell for less. A lot less.

And it's even worse than that. Fifteen years ago people were getting bank loans for bigger house than you normally stocked. So you went and built 25 additional houses. You've long since written those off, but you're still carrying that debt.

Now "you" here are the American housing market. Sure, a percentage of Millennials are going to buy a get good deals too. But the housing market is still going to be crippled and you're still going to have a lot of people left renting.

There's no great celebration here. Not until a lot of other factors improve, starting with better wages and less debt so these people can start buying again.


Yet another person who didn't read what I was critiquing...

OF COURSE IT MATTERS.  What I'm saying is that the study in the article isn't crap just because unemployment is higher.  There is still a sizable, growing, and larger % of the group interested in buying houses than before.
 
2014-06-26 02:28:44 PM  

Khellendros: brimed03: Pardon my Swahili, but it damned well does.

Say you have a stock of 100 houses, a consumer population of 100 people, and a business model based on 95% occupancy. Now you find that 16% of your population can't afford to buy a house. Worse, it might be upwards of 40%.

Yeah, 60-85% is still a big group. But your business plan is *screwed.* You've got a lot of carrying costs for that stock. Additionally, since you're overstocked it's now a buyers' market. The houses you *can* sell, you're going to have to sell for less. A lot less.

And it's even worse than that. Fifteen years ago people were getting bank loans for bigger house than you normally stocked. So you went and built 25 additional houses. You've long since written those off, but you're still carrying that debt.

Now "you" here are the American housing market. Sure, a percentage of Millennials are going to buy a get good deals too. But the housing market is still going to be crippled and you're still going to have a lot of people left renting.

There's no great celebration here. Not until a lot of other factors improve, starting with better wages and less debt so these people can start buying again.

Yet another person who didn't read what I was critiquing...

OF COURSE IT MATTERS.  What I'm saying is that the study in the article isn't crap just because unemployment is higher.  There is still a sizable, growing, and larger % of the group interested in buying houses than before.


Yeah, but "interested" is a worthless metric.  I'm interested in a house, a car and lots of things, but just because I'm interested doesn't men purchasing those things is feasible.  And, as someone else noted, even the 84% with jobs have tons of non-discharable student loan debt (at insanely high interest rates- mine are 6.8 and 7.9%) and likely don't make enough (as they are underpaid or underworked) to afford to save for a downpayment in the first place.
 
2014-06-26 02:37:44 PM  

bglove25: Yeah, but "interested" is a worthless metric. I'm interested in a house, a car and lots of things, but just because I'm interested doesn't men purchasing those things is feasible. And, as someone else noted, even the 84% with jobs have tons of non-discharable student loan debt (at insanely high interest rates- mine are 6.8 and 7.9%) and likely don't make enough (as they are underpaid or underworked) to afford to save for a downpayment in the first place.


And yet studies are showing they're moving out and buying houses faster than their expected pace.  All of the anecdotes aside, the numbers show they're a growing segment of home buyers.
 
2014-06-26 02:43:24 PM  

whistleridge: babygoat: Why can't the 84% that are employed buy houses?

Well...

1. Because they are far and away the most underpaid age cohort
2. They're averaging something like $29k in student loan debt
3. They already can't afford cars
4. They're not averaging a median-wage income until 30 or later
5. Average rent is $1000+/month, but the average mortgage is $900/month (ie, it is far cheaper to rent with 2-3 roommates than to buy)

Translation: by and large, millenials are underpaid, saddled with huge amounts of debt right out of the gate, have no job security, and can't even afford a car. How on Earth are they supposed to save for a down payment on a home and/or manage a mortgage?

Ours is the first generation since forever that is significantly less well off than our parents at the same age. It isn't even close.


The whining about student debt is getting tiresome, especially because it's complete buncombe.

Those averages are misleading because of how the stats are compiled - they often include graduate degree holders (who get themselves into a LOT of debt) and the fact that outliers who rack up TONS of debt skew the picture.  34% of bachelor's degree recipients graduated without *any* debt, and the median debt for students these days is in the ballpark of $10-13k.  The median income for someone with an 4-year degree is $45k - not big money to a lot of people, but it's not poverty wages.  The real problem with is that a lot of folks with student debt tend to get themselves into a lot of *other* debt, too - and ironically, they end up with less net worth than a lot of folks who didn't even go to college in the first place.

tl;dr - It's not *easy* for this generation, but the challenges they face have been WAY overblown.  Some sound financial decision-making and delayed gratification are what really drive their problems.

All of that said, there's nothing wrong, per se, with living with your folks right after college, especially if you have debt.  As long as you're pulling your weight around the house and using the money you save to pay off your debt, it's actually pretty smart - commendable, really.  So we should probably take it easy on kids shacking up with mom and dad (some of them, at least).
 
2014-06-26 02:51:38 PM  

lamecomedian: whistleridge: babygoat: Why can't the 84% that are employed buy houses?

Well...

1. Because they are far and away the most underpaid age cohort
2. They're averaging something like $29k in student loan debt
3. They already can't afford cars
4. They're not averaging a median-wage income until 30 or later
5. Average rent is $1000+/month, but the average mortgage is $900/month (ie, it is far cheaper to rent with 2-3 roommates than to buy)

Translation: by and large, millenials are underpaid, saddled with huge amounts of debt right out of the gate, have no job security, and can't even afford a car. How on Earth are they supposed to save for a down payment on a home and/or manage a mortgage?

Ours is the first generation since forever that is significantly less well off than our parents at the same age. It isn't even close.

The whining about student debt is getting tiresome, especially because it's complete buncombe.

Those averages are misleading because of how the stats are compiled - they often include graduate degree holders (who get themselves into a LOT of debt) and the fact that outliers who rack up TONS of debt skew the picture.  34% of bachelor's degree recipients graduated without *any* debt, and the median debt for students these days is in the ballpark of $10-13k.  The median income for someone with an 4-year degree is $45k - not big money to a lot of people, but it's not poverty wages.  The real problem with is that a lot of folks with student debt tend to get themselves into a lot of *other* debt, too - and ironically, they end up with less net worth than a lot of folks who didn't even go to college in the first place.

tl;dr - It's not *easy* for this generation, but the challenges they face have been WAY overblown.  Some sound financial decision-making and delayed gratification are what really drive their problems.

All of that said, there's nothing wrong, per se, with living with your folks right after college, especially if you have debt.  As long as y ...


It's true, going to school for a professional degree and not buying a house, car or any noticeable assets were shiatty financial decision-making and being unable to delay gratification...or you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2014-06-26 03:02:27 PM  

bglove25: lamecomedian: whistleridge: babygoat: Why can't the 84% that are employed buy houses?

Well...

1. Because they are far and away the most underpaid age cohort
2. They're averaging something like $29k in student loan debt
3. They already can't afford cars
4. They're not averaging a median-wage income until 30 or later
5. Average rent is $1000+/month, but the average mortgage is $900/month (ie, it is far cheaper to rent with 2-3 roommates than to buy)

Translation: by and large, millenials are underpaid, saddled with huge amounts of debt right out of the gate, have no job security, and can't even afford a car. How on Earth are they supposed to save for a down payment on a home and/or manage a mortgage?

Ours is the first generation since forever that is significantly less well off than our parents at the same age. It isn't even close.

The whining about student debt is getting tiresome, especially because it's complete buncombe.

Those averages are misleading because of how the stats are compiled - they often include graduate degree holders (who get themselves into a LOT of debt) and the fact that outliers who rack up TONS of debt skew the picture.  34% of bachelor's degree recipients graduated without *any* debt, and the median debt for students these days is in the ballpark of $10-13k.  The median income for someone with an 4-year degree is $45k - not big money to a lot of people, but it's not poverty wages.  The real problem with is that a lot of folks with student debt tend to get themselves into a lot of *other* debt, too - and ironically, they end up with less net worth than a lot of folks who didn't even go to college in the first place.

tl;dr - It's not *easy* for this generation, but the challenges they face have been WAY overblown.  Some sound financial decision-making and delayed gratification are what really drive their problems.

All of that said, there's nothing wrong, per se, with living with your folks right after college, especially if you have debt.  As long as y ...

It's true, going to school for a professional degree and not buying a house, car or any noticeable assets were shiatty financial decision-making and being unable to delay gratification...or you have no idea what you're talking about.


Look, Elizabeth "champion of the little people" Warren is with me on this one. You get rid of your debt, THEN you start investing/getting assets. I know you want to keep up with the joneses, but that's why you end up having a hard time paying your bills. Why get a $900 mortgage when you can split a $1000 rent three ways? You're not going to build up much equity if you're just getting by with your other bills (and you're locked into a big chunk of debt to - hard to sell/walk away from a mortgage if something comes up). Why get a new car instead of plunking down some cash for a used one? You only need it for transport.

Live simply until you get out of debt, then start picking up assets.

/Didn't take any loans for grad school
//Didn't buy a new car, either.
 
2014-06-26 03:08:52 PM  

lamecomedian: bglove25: lamecomedian: whistleridge: babygoat: Why can't the 84% that are employed buy houses?

Well...

1. Because they are far and away the most underpaid age cohort
2. They're averaging something like $29k in student loan debt
3. They already can't afford cars
4. They're not averaging a median-wage income until 30 or later
5. Average rent is $1000+/month, but the average mortgage is $900/month (ie, it is far cheaper to rent with 2-3 roommates than to buy)

Translation: by and large, millenials are underpaid, saddled with huge amounts of debt right out of the gate, have no job security, and can't even afford a car. How on Earth are they supposed to save for a down payment on a home and/or manage a mortgage?

Ours is the first generation since forever that is significantly less well off than our parents at the same age. It isn't even close.

The whining about student debt is getting tiresome, especially because it's complete buncombe.

Those averages are misleading because of how the stats are compiled - they often include graduate degree holders (who get themselves into a LOT of debt) and the fact that outliers who rack up TONS of debt skew the picture.  34% of bachelor's degree recipients graduated without *any* debt, and the median debt for students these days is in the ballpark of $10-13k.  The median income for someone with an 4-year degree is $45k - not big money to a lot of people, but it's not poverty wages.  The real problem with is that a lot of folks with student debt tend to get themselves into a lot of *other* debt, too - and ironically, they end up with less net worth than a lot of folks who didn't even go to college in the first place.

tl;dr - It's not *easy* for this generation, but the challenges they face have been WAY overblown.  Some sound financial decision-making and delayed gratification are what really drive their problems.

All of that said, there's nothing wrong, per se, with living with your folks right after college, especially if you ...


Huh, but this whole thread is about how my generation is ready to buy houses- wheras I'm saying I'm saying that people can't because they're gonna be in debt a long long time and aren't making enough to pay it down while financing a home purchase.  And I didn't say those were things I have purchased, they are things I wish I could purchase as an employed adult male that are impossible for me to save for or purchase.  I already live with 4 roommates, drive a 7 year old car and don't make enough to save for retirement. Basically, people in my generation did everything "correctly" and are still getting farked (and in statistically significant numbers that it farks up the rest of the economy).  I'm glad your grad school was dirt cheap or gave you scholarships, but alas, that's not the case for the vast majority of people in this country.
 
2014-06-26 03:13:44 PM  

bglove25: lamecomedian: bglove25: lamecomedian: whistleridge: babygoat: Why can't the 84% that are employed buy houses?

Well...

1. Because they are far and away the most underpaid age cohort
2. They're averaging something like $29k in student loan debt
3. They already can't afford cars
4. They're not averaging a median-wage income until 30 or later
5. Average rent is $1000+/month, but the average mortgage is $900/month (ie, it is far cheaper to rent with 2-3 roommates than to buy)

Translation: by and large, millenials are underpaid, saddled with huge amounts of debt right out of the gate, have no job security, and can't even afford a car. How on Earth are they supposed to save for a down payment on a home and/or manage a mortgage?

Ours is the first generation since forever that is significantly less well off than our parents at the same age. It isn't even close.

The whining about student debt is getting tiresome, especially because it's complete buncombe.

Those averages are misleading because of how the stats are compiled - they often include graduate degree holders (who get themselves into a LOT of debt) and the fact that outliers who rack up TONS of debt skew the picture.  34% of bachelor's degree recipients graduated without *any* debt, and the median debt for students these days is in the ballpark of $10-13k.  The median income for someone with an 4-year degree is $45k - not big money to a lot of people, but it's not poverty wages.  The real problem with is that a lot of folks with student debt tend to get themselves into a lot of *other* debt, too - and ironically, they end up with less net worth than a lot of folks who didn't even go to college in the first place.

tl;dr - It's not *easy* for this generation, but the challenges they face have been WAY overblown.  Some sound financial decision-making and delayed gratification are what really drive their problems.

All of that said, there's nothing wrong, per se, with living with your folks right after college, especially if you ...

Huh, but this whole thread is about how my generation is ready to buy houses- wheras I'm saying I'm saying that people can't because they're gonna be in debt a long long time and aren't making enough to pay it down while financing a home purchase.  And I didn't say those were things I have purchased, they are things I wish I could purchase as an employed adult male that are impossible for me to save for or purchase.  I already live with 4 roommates, drive a 7 year old car and don't make enough to save for retirement. Basically, people in my generation did everything "correctly" and are still getting farked (and in statistically significant numbers that it farks up the rest of the economy).  I'm glad your grad school was dirt cheap or gave you scholarships, but alas, that's not the case for the vast majority of people in this country.


1) You're right - they shouldn't be buying houses until they get their debt under control. Dumb article is dumb.
2) How long have you been out of school/at your job? I mean, i don't think people pay off their debt overnight. It does take some patience.
 
2014-06-26 03:20:53 PM  

lamecomedian: bglove25: lamecomedian: bglove25: lamecomedian: whistleridge: babygoat: Why can't the 84% that are employed buy houses?

Well...

1. Because they are far and away the most underpaid age cohort
2. They're averaging something like $29k in student loan debt
3. They already can't afford cars
4. They're not averaging a median-wage income until 30 or later
5. Average rent is $1000+/month, but the average mortgage is $900/month (ie, it is far cheaper to rent with 2-3 roommates than to buy)

Translation: by and large, millenials are underpaid, saddled with huge amounts of debt right out of the gate, have no job security, and can't even afford a car. How on Earth are they supposed to save for a down payment on a home and/or manage a mortgage?

Ours is the first generation since forever that is significantly less well off than our parents at the same age. It isn't even close.

The whining about student debt is getting tiresome, especially because it's complete buncombe.

Those averages are misleading because of how the stats are compiled - they often include graduate degree holders (who get themselves into a LOT of debt) and the fact that outliers who rack up TONS of debt skew the picture.  34% of bachelor's degree recipients graduated without *any* debt, and the median debt for students these days is in the ballpark of $10-13k.  The median income for someone with an 4-year degree is $45k - not big money to a lot of people, but it's not poverty wages.  The real problem with is that a lot of folks with student debt tend to get themselves into a lot of *other* debt, too - and ironically, they end up with less net worth than a lot of folks who didn't even go to college in the first place.

tl;dr - It's not *easy* for this generation, but the challenges they face have been WAY overblown.  Some sound financial decision-making and delayed gratification are what really drive their problems.

All of that said, there's nothing wrong, per se, with living with your folks right after col ...


2 years since my Doctorate and I worked for 2 years before entering it.  Graduated undergrad in 3 years (and spent 2 as an RA) to graduate with minimum debt.  But my graduate school loans topped at over 115K and I made 16k last year! WooooooooOOOOOOOOoooooo!   But yes, the system works perfectly fine....
 
2014-06-26 03:34:53 PM  

bglove25: 2 years since my Doctorate and I worked for 2 years before entering it. Graduated undergrad in 3 years (and spent 2 as an RA) to graduate with minimum debt. But my graduate school loans topped at over 115K and I made 16k last year! WooooooooOOOOOOOOoooooo! But yes, the system works perfectly fine....


Can you spot your mistake?

Seriously, though:

1) Did you have your student debt from your undergraduate degree paid off before you started the grad degree?
2) Was the job that you were working at before you started your PhD paying you enough to have done so if you kept at it a few more years?
3) Dare I ask what you got your degrees in?  Or what your pre- and post- grad school jobs have been?
 
2014-06-26 03:40:27 PM  
And, you know, to lay all of my cards on the table - I haven't been perfect about this myself.  My wife and I could have been more conservative spenders when we first started out, and we probably should have put off buying our house - we wanted to get in on the foreclosures/federal money, but in retrospect, if we had kept renting, we would have been debt free for a couple of years now, with enough money for a down payment on a house.  But we have been very careful not to take on *new* debt when I was considering grad school, I made up my mind that I wasn't going to do it if we would have to borrow money for it.  And while money's tight for us right now (we have a kid), we aren't sunk because we've kept the number of bills we have to pay lower than a lot of our friends.
 
2014-06-26 03:41:11 PM  

lamecomedian: bglove25: 2 years since my Doctorate and I worked for 2 years before entering it. Graduated undergrad in 3 years (and spent 2 as an RA) to graduate with minimum debt. But my graduate school loans topped at over 115K and I made 16k last year! WooooooooOOOOOOOOoooooo! But yes, the system works perfectly fine....

Can you spot your mistake?

Seriously, though:

1) Did you have your student debt from your undergraduate degree paid off before you started the grad degree?
2) Was the job that you were working at before you started your PhD paying you enough to have done so if you kept at it a few more years?
3) Dare I ask what you got your degrees in?  Or what your pre- and post- grad school jobs have been?


You're one of those people that think the most important thing is the amount of debt in absolute terms. When I agreed to attend the school, most people were making 140k upon graduating.

1) I continue with the debt because the median salary of the occupation I went into (at the time) said it was no problem.
2) HAHAHAHA- at a minimum, student loan debt is on a 10 year repayment plan, but usually closer to 20-30.  So yeah, I would have paid it off eventually.
3) I worked for a government contractor post undergrad and am currently an attorney.  At this point, my undergrad is irrelevant (but was summa cum laude English, a minor in philosophy).  I also graduated with Honors as an Editor on my school's (ranked in the top 20 law schools in the nation) Law Review.
 
2014-06-26 03:48:36 PM  

brimed03: que.guero: whistleridge: babygoat: Why can't the 84% that are employed buy houses?

Well...

1. Because they are far and away the most underpaid age cohort
2. They're averaging something like $29k in student loan debt
3. They already can't afford cars
4. They're not averaging a median-wage income until 30 or later
5. Average rent is $1000+/month, but the average mortgage is $900/month (ie, it is far cheaper to rent with 2-3 roommates than to buy)

Translation: by and large, millenials are underpaid, saddled with huge amounts of debt right out of the gate, have no job security, and can't even afford a car. How on Earth are they supposed to save for a down payment on a home and/or manage a mortgage?

Ours is the first generation since forever that is significantly less well off than our parents at the same age. It isn't even close.

Funny story...

Pretty much every generation emerging into what the old folks of every age consider adulthood suddenly notices "Damn, we're farked."

The boomers had the OPEC Crisis

Generation X had Reaganomics

Now it's the Millennial turn in the barrel

The hubris of adolescence is the belief that you are the ones who are going to escape the trap that has ensnared everyone else.

The OPEC crisis? Seriously? You really think the Boomer "OPEC crisis" remotely compares to what Millennials are going through today?

/not a Millennial.


I dunno, ask a boomer, I'm sure they'll be happy to tell you all about if you'll bring an onion for their belt.
 
2014-06-26 03:58:20 PM  
bglove25:

You're one of those people that think the most important thing is the amount of debt in absolute terms. When I agreed to attend the school, most people were making 140k upon graduating.

Oh not at all - I'm a person who thinks that any debt is pretty crappy, regardless of the amount.  It puts you under obligation to people who are usually jerks.

1) I continue with the debt because the median salary of the occupation I went into (at the time) said it was no problem.
2) HAHAHAHA- at a minimum, student loan debt is on a 10 year repayment plan, but usually closer to 20-30.   So yeah, I would have paid it off eventually.
3) I worked for a government contractor post undergrad and am currently an attorney.  At this point, my undergrad is irrelevant (but was summa cum laude English, a minor in philosophy).  I also graduated with Honors as an Editor on my school's (ranked in the top 20 law schools in the nation) Law Review.


Wait... so you had a comfortable salary that gave you a chance to pay off your undergrad loans, but you didn't because you expected that you would always be making plenty of money?  "I would have paid it off eventually" is exactly the wrong kind of thinking (as you've discovered, apparently).  The longer you take to pay off those debts, the more you end up paying (by a pretty huge margin).  Why give your creditors more money than you have to?  How much did you owe after graduation, after curiosity?

Why did you decide to get a PhD - and what did you get it in?  Law?

And hey, I've probably been coming off as a dick.  Sorry.  But it just sounds like your financial troubles probably at least as much your doing as "the economy's."
 
2014-06-26 04:09:41 PM  

lamecomedian: bglove25:

You're one of those people that think the most important thing is the amount of debt in absolute terms. When I agreed to attend the school, most people were making 140k upon graduating.

Oh not at all - I'm a person who thinks that any debt is pretty crappy, regardless of the amount.  It puts you under obligation to people who are usually jerks.

1) I continue with the debt because the median salary of the occupation I went into (at the time) said it was no problem.
2) HAHAHAHA- at a minimum, student loan debt is on a 10 year repayment plan, but usually closer to 20-30.   So yeah, I would have paid it off eventually.
3) I worked for a government contractor post undergrad and am currently an attorney.  At this point, my undergrad is irrelevant (but was summa cum laude English, a minor in philosophy).  I also graduated with Honors as an Editor on my school's (ranked in the top 20 law schools in the nation) Law Review.

Wait... so you had a comfortable salary that gave you a chance to pay off your undergrad loans, but you didn't because you expected that you would always be making plenty of money?  "I would have paid it off eventually" is exactly the wrong kind of thinking (as you've discovered, apparently).  The longer you take to pay off those debts, the more you end up paying (by a pretty huge margin).  Why give your creditors more money than you have to?  How much did you owe after graduation, after curiosity?

Why did you decide to get a PhD - and what did you get it in?  Law?

And hey, I've probably been coming off as a dick.  Sorry.  But it just sounds like your financial troubles probably at least as much your doing as "the economy's."


Truely, the wisest choice of someone making 38k a year is to stay there, not go to school and get a degree that most graduates (when I entered)  make 4-5x that annually upon graduating.  Yes, I decided to get a JD because generally, lawyers are better paid than government contractors that organize conferences.  And I got a scholarship to attend the law school I eventually went to.  Regardless of what you make in a year, if you took out 3 years salary worth of debt with the payoff that your salary would very likely be 4-5 times higher for the remainder of your life, you make that choice.  Sorry, anyone that says, "hey, don't use your talents to get paid or move ahead, its too expensive to earn/work your way up the ladder" isn't someone whose judgement on finance I trust.

I owed approximately 14k. I chose to give my creditors more money because debt is not, categorically, a bad thing and my debt load was manageable for the anticipated return on investment.  I mean, bully for you if you can afford your education, kid, cars and living expense without debt, but um, I didn't come from money, so college debt was a given.  Of course, the economy tanked and law firms generally stopped hiring while I was in school, so I got farked. But it wasn't because I made a poor decision given the information available at the time.
 
2014-06-26 04:12:05 PM  

lamecomedian: bglove25:

You're one of those people that think the most important thing is the amount of debt in absolute terms. When I agreed to attend the school, most people were making 140k upon graduating.

Oh not at all - I'm a person who thinks that any debt is pretty crappy, regardless of the amount.  It puts you under obligation to people who are usually jerks.

1) I continue with the debt because the median salary of the occupation I went into (at the time) said it was no problem.
2) HAHAHAHA- at a minimum, student loan debt is on a 10 year repayment plan, but usually closer to 20-30.   So yeah, I would have paid it off eventually.
3) I worked for a government contractor post undergrad and am currently an attorney.  At this point, my undergrad is irrelevant (but was summa cum laude English, a minor in philosophy).  I also graduated with Honors as an Editor on my school's (ranked in the top 20 law schools in the nation) Law Review.

Wait... so you had a comfortable salary that gave you a chance to pay off your undergrad loans, but you didn't because you expected that you would always be making plenty of money?  "I would have paid it off eventually" is exactly the wrong kind of thinking (as you've discovered, apparently).  The longer you take to pay off those debts, the more you end up paying (by a pretty huge margin).  Why give your creditors more money than you have to?  How much did you owe after graduation, after curiosity?

Why did you decide to get a PhD - and what did you get it in?  Law?

And hey, I've probably been coming off as a dick.  Sorry.  But it just sounds like your financial troubles probably at least as much your doing as "the economy's."


Also, fun fact, the JD that all lawyers have is, in fact, a doctoral degree.
 
2014-06-26 04:41:17 PM  

bglove25: Truely, the wisest choice of someone making 38k a year is to stay there, not go to school and get a degree that most graduates (when I entered) make 4-5x that annually upon graduating.


The wisest choice is to pay off your debt before taking on more debt, especially if you're already making a comfortable amount of money.  Or did you think they were going to close up all of the law schools in the next five years and keep you from getting your JD?  What's the rush to borrow more money?  Oh wait, here it is, it's to "make 4-5x [as much money]."  Good old fashioned greed - a desire to get rich quick.  And look where it got you.

Yes, I decided to get a JD because generally, lawyers are better paid than government contractors that organize conferences. And I got a scholarship to attend the law school I eventually went to.

It must not have been much of a scholarship if you still ended up with $115k in debt, eh?

Regardless of what you make in a year, if you took out 3 years salary worth of debt with the payoff that your salary would very likely be 4-5 times higher for the remainder of your life, you make that choice. Sorry, anyone that says, "hey, don't use your talents to get paid or move ahead, its too expensive to earn/work your way up the ladder" isn't someone whose judgement on finance I trust.

I hope you read your legal briefs more closely than fark threads, because no one's said that.  What I have said is that it's probably wiser to pay off old debts before taking on new ones.  So you end up going to law school a little later - why is that a bad thing?  Heck, if you had waited, you would've seen all the jobs dry up *before* getting committed.

I owed approximately 14k. I chose to give my creditors more money because debt is not, categorically, a bad thing and my debt load was manageable for the anticipated return on investment.

Debt confers no advantages, so why hold on to it when you don't have to?  And there is, of course, always the matter of risk - like, say, the risk of not getting a job with the right salary.  And one way to keep your financial house in order is minimize your risks (e.g., but getting rid of debt whenever/wherever you can).

I mean, bully for you if you can afford your education, kid, cars and living expense without debt, but um, I didn't come from money, so college debt was a given. Of course, the economy tanked and law firms generally stopped hiring while I was in school, so I got farked. But it wasn't because I made a poor decision given the information available at the time.

Getting over 100k into debt with no real assets to fall back on is a poor decision.  I mean, take a good, hard look at your situation and ask yourself: if you had not gone to law school and racked up another $115k in debt, would you be better or worse off than you are now?  How long would it have taken you to pay off your old student loan with your old job, and how much of your money would you have been able to save/invest by now?  It would've been what, 4-5 more years at 38k?  If you just put aside $300 a month to pay off your loans, you'd be done with them by now, and then you could be putting that $300/month into your bank account instead.  You're making the same mistakes the previous generation did - only thinking about the potential for profit without thinking about the potential consequences if things go wrong (and things can always go wrong).

I've been able to afford my education not because I come from money (my father was the first one in his family to get a college education, and that was only because he was in the Navy).  And when I was going to school, my father was still finishing up his own PhD, not raking in the big bucks.  But he's a frugal man, and I learned just enough from him to figure out that less debt is always better than more debt, and that debt is always risky.  Hell, we've probably had very similar circumstances, just made different choices.  Though I suppose if you were single that would put me at a comparative advantage - having a spouse who brings in another income makes things a lot easier in many ways.

Also, fun fact, the JD that all lawyers have is, in fact, a doctoral degree.

Another fun fact: only pretentious people refer to them as such.  "Doctorate," when used in common parlance, suggests PhD or MD.
 
2014-06-26 04:53:12 PM  

Lucky LaRue: When did living with your parents until you are 30 become the statues quo? Hell, my son is 16, and he's only allowed to come home for the summer and spring/winter breaks.


Apparently, everywhere except the US having multiple generations in one household is the rule rather than the exception.
 
2014-06-26 05:04:38 PM  

Lucky LaRue: The leading edge of this closely watched generation will soon reach their 30s, the age range in which household formation ramps up

When did living with your parents until you are 30 become the statues quo?  Hell, my son is 16, and he's only allowed to come home for the summer and spring/winter breaks.


16?  Did you send him to a boarding school or did he just skip a few grades?
 
2014-06-26 05:16:45 PM  

bglove25: lamecomedian: bglove25: 2 years since my Doctorate and I worked for 2 years before entering it. Graduated undergrad in 3 years (and spent 2 as an RA) to graduate with minimum debt. But my graduate school loans topped at over 115K and I made 16k last year! WooooooooOOOOOOOOoooooo! But yes, the system works perfectly fine....

Can you spot your mistake?

Seriously, though:

1) Did you have your student debt from your undergraduate degree paid off before you started the grad degree?
2) Was the job that you were working at before you started your PhD paying you enough to have done so if you kept at it a few more years?
3) Dare I ask what you got your degrees in?  Or what your pre- and post- grad school jobs have been?

You're one of those people that think the most important thing is the amount of debt in absolute terms. When I agreed to attend the school, most people were making 140k upon graduating.

1) I continue with the debt because the median salary of the occupation I went into (at the time) said it was no problem.
2) HAHAHAHA- at a minimum, student loan debt is on a 10 year repayment plan, but usually closer to 20-30.  So yeah, I would have paid it off eventually.
3) I worked for a government contractor post undergrad and am currently an attorney.  At this point, my undergrad is irrelevant (but was summa cum laude English, a minor in philosophy).  I also graduated with Honors as an Editor on my school's (ranked in the top 20 law schools in the nation) Law Review.


Market for new  lawyers tanked before 2006 -- even large firms were deferring starting dates for new associates by then.  When did you start law school?
 
2014-06-26 05:18:59 PM  

bglove25: Also, fun fact, the JD that all lawyers have is, in fact, a doctoral degree.


It is, but most of us say we have a law degree, not a doctorate.  Do you put "Esq. after your own name, too?
 
2014-06-26 05:20:27 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Lucky LaRue: The leading edge of this closely watched generation will soon reach their 30s, the age range in which household formation ramps up

When did living with your parents until you are 30 become the statues quo?  Hell, my son is 16, and he's only allowed to come home for the summer and spring/winter breaks.

16?  Did you send him to a boarding school or did he just skip a few grades?


It's work release.  ;)
 
2014-06-26 05:36:16 PM  

Scoop84: bglove25: lamecomedian: bglove25: 2 years since my Doctorate and I worked for 2 years before entering it. Graduated undergrad in 3 years (and spent 2 as an RA) to graduate with minimum debt. But my graduate school loans topped at over 115K and I made 16k last year! WooooooooOOOOOOOOoooooo! But yes, the system works perfectly fine....

Can you spot your mistake?

Seriously, though:

1) Did you have your student debt from your undergraduate degree paid off before you started the grad degree?
2) Was the job that you were working at before you started your PhD paying you enough to have done so if you kept at it a few more years?
3) Dare I ask what you got your degrees in?  Or what your pre- and post- grad school jobs have been?

You're one of those people that think the most important thing is the amount of debt in absolute terms. When I agreed to attend the school, most people were making 140k upon graduating.

1) I continue with the debt because the median salary of the occupation I went into (at the time) said it was no problem.
2) HAHAHAHA- at a minimum, student loan debt is on a 10 year repayment plan, but usually closer to 20-30.  So yeah, I would have paid it off eventually.
3) I worked for a government contractor post undergrad and am currently an attorney.  At this point, my undergrad is irrelevant (but was summa cum laude English, a minor in philosophy).  I also graduated with Honors as an Editor on my school's (ranked in the top 20 law schools in the nation) Law Review.

Market for new  lawyers tanked before 2006 -- even large firms were deferring starting dates for new associates by then.  When did you start law school?


Not his fault.  The law school didn't tell him about it when they sent him his acceptance letter.
 
2014-06-26 06:00:41 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Lucky LaRue: The leading edge of this closely watched generation will soon reach their 30s, the age range in which household formation ramps up

When did living with your parents until you are 30 become the statues quo?  Hell, my son is 16, and he's only allowed to come home for the summer and spring/winter breaks.

16?  Did you send him to a boarding school or did he just skip a few grades?


Sort of a boarding school.. The state has a governor's STEM school for math nerds, and he got in to that.
 
2014-06-26 10:52:56 PM  

Khellendros: brimed03: Pardon my Swahili, but it damned well does.

Say you have a stock of 100 houses, a consumer population of 100 people, and a business model based on 95% occupancy. Now you find that 16% of your population can't afford to buy a house. Worse, it might be upwards of 40%.

Yeah, 60-85% is still a big group. But your business plan is *screwed.* You've got a lot of carrying costs for that stock. Additionally, since you're overstocked it's now a buyers' market. The houses you *can* sell, you're going to have to sell for less. A lot less.

And it's even worse than that. Fifteen years ago people were getting bank loans for bigger house than you normally stocked. So you went and built 25 additional houses. You've long since written those off, but you're still carrying that debt.

Now "you" here are the American housing market. Sure, a percentage of Millennials are going to buy a get good deals too. But the housing market is still going to be crippled and you're still going to have a lot of people left renting.

There's no great celebration here. Not until a lot of other factors improve, starting with better wages and less debt so these people can start buying again.

Yet another person who didn't read what I was critiquing...

OF COURSE IT MATTERS.  What I'm saying is that the study in the article isn't crap just because unemployment is higher.  There is still a sizable, growing, and larger % of the group interested in buying houses than before.


If multiple people appear not to have "read what [you were] critiquing," maybe the the problem isn't the multiple people. Maybe you didn't do a good job communicating what you intended.

Because the rest of us seem to be pretty much in concert with what we understood and critiqued.

As yes, the article is crap. If all it was saying was that there are more people ready to buy today than yesterday, that might be fine. I still think my criticism would apply but whatever. The problem with tfa is that its tone is clearly "hey, Millennials as a cohort are financially on their feet again, so stop worrying about them and, parents, get busy kicking them out!"

If you want to argue that's not what it presents, you're definitely on your own. That's what the rest of us read and reacted to.
 
2014-06-27 01:16:33 PM  

lamecomedian: And, you know, to lay all of my cards on the table - I haven't been perfect about this myself.  My wife and I could have been more conservative spenders when we first started out, and we probably should have put off buying our house - we wanted to get in on the foreclosures/federal money, but in retrospect, if we had kept renting, we would have been debt free for a couple of years now, with enough money for a down payment on a house.  But we have been very careful not to take on *new* debt when I was considering grad school, I made up my mind that I wasn't going to do it if we would have to borrow money for it.  And while money's tight for us right now (we have a kid), we aren't sunk because we've kept the number of bills we have to pay lower than a lot of our friends.


I suppose the real question to ask is: is your mortgage about the same per month as you were paying for rent when you bought the house? If the answer is yes, then you made a good choice buying a house when you did. In the long run, you will be better off than if you rented for another 10 years.

I bought my house about 2 years ago, taking advantage of the foreclosed housing prices and the record low interest rates. Even when adding in property taxes and home insurance, I now pay a little less per month on my home than what I paid to rent my old 1-bedroom apartment.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report