Buying a family-sized home with three or more bedrooms used to be manageable for young people with children. But with home prices climbing faster than wages, mortgage rates still close to 23-year highs and a shortage of homes nationwide, many Millennials with kids can’t afford it. And Gen Z adults with kids? Even harder.
Meanwhile, Baby Boomers are staying in their larger homes for longer, preferring to age in place and stay active in a neighborhood that’s familiar to them. And even if they sold, where would they go? There is a shortage of smaller homes in those neighborhoods.
As a result, empty-nest Baby Boomers own 28% of large homes — and Milliennials with kids own just 14%, according to a Redfin analysis released Tuesday. Gen Z families own just 0.3% of homes with three bedrooms or more.
Boomers should have housing. And we shouldn’t ignore the idiosyncratic attachments that people develop to their homes. Saying “the boomers need to move so I can have a home” is no different than saying “that people group needs to move so my people group has living space.”
We can all have homes. The problem is that the corporations are incentivized to buy residential property and rent it to us. Fuck them.
Around me there are strata neighborhoods (HOA) with 3 bedroom houses with restrictions saying you have to be 55+ years of age to live there. There’s no reason other than it makes the housing cheap to purchase for older folks. Younger folk get screwed yet again. There’s no reason a 3+ bedroom house should be reserved for older people.
I could understand it if there were handicap accessible bathrooms and whatnot but they are just regular homes. Also many luxury condos with the same restrictions.
This post is a load of horse shit.
The reason housing prices are out of control is because investment firms are gobbling them up with cash, yet you’re blaming it on boomers staying in their homes.
Boomers are staying in their homes BECAUSE the housing market is out of control. Stop blaming older people and start blaming Wall Street.
Exactly. Where will they move to? Most older people want to stay in the neighborhood that they grew up in. It’s not like an 80 year old will be selling their house in suburban Long Island to find a cheap room in rural Alaska.
This point is literally in the article, almost word for word, and it’s being upvoted as a defense of them against this article that’s allegedly trying to blame them.
Fucking hell, it never ceases to amaze me that people will be so up in arms against something they didn’t even bother to read.
And it’s not like new houses haven’t been built since grandpa bought his house.
And it’s not like there isn’t people benefitting now on a housing shortage caused by Airbnb buying up all that new housing.
Blaming boomers for corrupt Airbnb for this is a desperate reach.
Corporations and foreign countries are buying up real estate like crazy and OP wants to blame retired people? STFU.
“Old people to blame for not selling their houses or dying sooner!"
Seriously, WTF? It’s my house. The entitlement of some people…
We just need more of them, not some random group to get fucked out of their housing. Bleed the 1%
Not sure how more boomers would help…
Baby Boomers, Millenials, amd Gen Z account for… 42% of homes.
Classic Gen X erasure aside… I have doubt Gen X owns the remaining 58% today. The article does mention 18% of gen X owned 10 years ago. And I am doubtful the Silent Generation is still clinging to their numbers.
And so under the most charitable interpretation: that is still a 20% gap of ownership by what I can only assume is a business enterprise.
Corporate propaganda.
Obviously fuck boomers.
But we can’t afford housing because of corporations. Not other people.
Boomers are the largest private owners of homes, even more than actual corporations that are actively buying and raising housing prices in order to pad their books.
The only way out of this is a financial collapse and that will end up killing millions before the market actually reaches a reasonable price and rate. I don’t want this but this seems to be the direction the current macroeconomic conditions are heading.
2024-2028 are going to be some of the most shitty years in human history
~3000 baby boomers die every day.
Some of them will part with their homes.
Hopefully most of those homes go to their kids so they can actually have a chance at home ownership in this shithole of a world we’ve built.
And where is it suggested boomers should live? My MIL has a paid-for home, but is now in assisted living. It costs 6K a month, which is eating through her savings at a shocking rate, even though we’re paying a portion of her AL rent.
If she had the ability to stay home, you better believe she would, because she can’t afford to part with her home.
Idgaf about the boomers who want to grow old in the homes they bought. Thats their right as a homeowner. I care about the airbnbs, unskilled flippers, and the corps trying to turn America into a “renters market”
There are so many “boomer bad”, “genx vs millenniall”, “zoomers are lazy” stories lately. Seems like they got tired of just pitting races against each other and moved onto fake generational conflict. This way we don’t notice what the billionaires are doing to all of us. Meanwhile the 5 richest billionaires doubled their net worth.
yeah kinda feels like the corporations trying to push a bogeyman to distract us.
No, just a writer with nothing to write about. This article is seriously summed up as “omg people are choosing to live in the homes they bought, wtf??!”
These fuckers too - price hiking people out of rentals is a policy. The encourage evictions instead of negotiation. it’s fucked.
This. it’s ok to own a home. It’s ok to rent a home. people need places to live.
What’s not ok is being a slumlord.
My 90 year old grandmother refuses to go to a nursing home (and honestly I can’t blame her) and actually just blew a ton of money getting her home remodeled. She has no plans to leave until she passes away, at which point the house will go to my father who has plans to sell it.
Meanwhile, my wife and I barely make the median income amount and, at 36, we’re never going to be able to afford a home.
“Shortage of homes” created by a parasitic class of people and corporations who gobble up all the available homes
Baby boomers aren’t some evil monolith hiding in the closet waiting to steal your bag of Oreos.
Where do you propose they move to? Even if we wanted them to vacate homes, there’s an assisted living shortage (heads up, article is kind ehhhhhhhh overall) so we can’t just shove them somewhere.
Baby boomers aren’t, but capitalists are.
They’re the ones who gobble up all available real estate to manipulate everyone else with for their own benefit.
I assume that was Karashta’s intent, not Baby boomers as you deflected to.
The plan was that they sell their home and downsize into an easier to maintain condo.
Sure, if this hyper-abundance of condos exists. Unfortunately it doesn’t.
It existed 15 years ago, when millennials were starting to move out of their parents’ home.
Sure, but that’s 15 years ago and homebuilders drastically slowed down since then. Now the Boomers can’t sell their house and move somewhere cheaper screwing up a source of money for their retirement.
We’re all fucked in this mess, it doesn’t matter which generation you’re in.
What everyone is saying is that boomers were greedy. They held on to everything. Jobs, homes, they voted away our social safety nets because they wanted to keep their tax money and voted for conservatives and neo liberals.
Now the younger generation had a late start in life because of this. They got an education but couldn’t find jobs. They wanted to get a house to raise a family but they had to forfeit that whole idea because of the little savings they could make. And because raising a child in a one bedroom 500sqft apartment, or condo unit at best, isn’t ideal.
You’re directing the blame at the working class when the political system created these problems.
Who did you vote for in 2008? The neoliberal or the neocon?
2012? Neoliberal or neocon?
2020? The neoliberal or the alt-right lunatic?
2024? The neoliberal or the alt-right lunatic?
As a millennial I have a pretty bad track record by voting for all these neolibs
Media doing everything they can to keep people fighting each other rather than the owner class…
Damn, reading these comments it’s pretty much working.
I wrote out a very angry reply, but as often happens, as I cooled down and reflected, it was 100% the result of this enormously clickbait title, not the article itself.
The article itself DOES mention the mortgage rates, and it DOES acknowledge that Boomers might be willing to move out (in direct contradiction to its own title) but cannot bc of a shortage of affordable smaller homes, the same as everyone else.
In short, Boomers are trapped too - again it’s not that they “won’t” so much as they “can’t” - even if sitting better in a home that they (hopefully) own rather than having to rent.
There is simply no excuse for such a race-baiting, purposefully combative title.:-( Maybe we need to start using AI to generate new titles to replace those profit-mongering ones? :-)
I’m here to say thank you for keeping your cool on the internet despite the clickbait and somewhat ragebait headline.
This definitely helps make the Fediverse a nicer place.
One of the rules of this community is you must use the same title for your post as the news article title.
So now we have quite a few clickbait & ragebait titles, because that’s what the corps are doing. Pretty dumb rule, IMO.
Rules can change, but mainly I mean that we need to be the change we want to see in the world. e.g. maybe not even allow articles labeled as “news” that are meant only to distract our attention away from corporations’ profit margins, being written by conservative right-wing propaganda arms of the media such as [checks notes] “CNN”. Well… shit.
Yes, some kind of minimum standard would be good.
On piefed.social there are over 3000 domains that cannot be linked to, including all the alt-right propaganda ones. Brietbart, Russia Today, etc. I wouldn’t go as far as including CNN in that list though.
To clarify: I was being mostly tongue-in-cheek on that part. Most of the time you do not associate “CNN” with “right-wing propaganda”, as while it may not be entirely unbiased it does not lie so far on the spectrum as to deserve that label of “propaganda”. Or at least it has not been that way in the past?
The cussing at the end though was to indicate my absolute surprise at finding that this article is now contributing towards its inching closer to earning that distinction though. Or at least the title of this article accomplishes that effect, even though the content itself does not. Also, I noticed that this is not an “opinion” piece, nor at the end do they have a disclaimer that the views of the author may not necessarily reflect that of the journal - so this seems fully supported by the editorial staff at CNN Business?
Fwiw, I wonder if they even care which political direction it pushes people towards - so long as it makes people angry, their profits increase by people clicking on it?
Ofc I agree that CNN Business is not as far advanced along the propaganda spectrum as those others you listed (in those, the content itself would be biased as well)… but neither is CNN Business unbiased either, apparently. Just look at how many incendiary words & phrases are used - they “won’t part” (like a toddler holding a toy?), the direct interpretation that “that’s a problem”, the “think of the children” tactic, not calling them “Generation Baby Boomer” or some such but the almost pejorative these days “Boomers”, and using right out of the gate as almost a verb like BOOM those old farts did another thing again, now click to find out why you should be angry!? (which itself, like propaganda tends to do, implies the never-ending NOW that is all that is assumed to ever matter to the reader, not “this is happening lately” or “there is a trend showing up recently”, but “[THEY] WON’T PART”, as if that stage will continue forever without some inertia-stopping force to stop this “problem for young families” - a force that will demand ACTION? which btw is what drives the urge to click the article, b/c otherwise mere information delivery could allow someone to read the title and move on with their lives, but no, this article must be CLICKED, IMMEDIATELY!) Later, the article itself softens this heavy pushing of phrases considerably - e.g. note the switch inside to now “Baby Boomers”, and putting transition words in front of it to shift the focus away from them and more on the nature of the underlying transitioning effect itself (e.g. “Meanwhile, Baby Boomers…”, as in a process that is currently underway, over the course of some period of time, rather than the “BOOMERS WON’T PART” in more active, and urgent, voice).
So… from the title alone, it sure looks an awful lot like propaganda to me? I hope to see less of this from CNN Business in the future, but if instead I see more then I will have to update my view on where they stand on that spectrum. Again, at least in reference to their titles as separate from the actual article content.
Thank you for this chance to vent btw, and your perspective does help clarify matters.:-)
Yes, great analysis.
Someone on fedi somewhere recently said “if the article makes you scared or angry, you’re probably being manipulated”.
It sounds like a fantastic rule of thumb. To be fair, it is REALLY hard to make use of language in a way that engenders zero emotional response on behalf of the recipient - and why would you want to even?
Unfortunately, when that emotional response later turns into disappointment after learning that it was fake, you develop a pattern of distrusting whomever it was that made you feel that way. Which at this point is almost EVERY major corporation, especially the formerly “news” ones?!
e.g., I recall feeling sick upon learning that Donald Trump had sex with a 14-year-old (at the time) girl. Even though I was being, um… “encouraged” to feel that way… I do not regret that emotion, nor distrust who sold me that story, to the extent that those facts are accurate? (based on her own testimony, which she said she was willing to swear to in a court of law, and she provided details that supposedly were corroborated, at least enough to place her at one of those parties, yes run by Epstein, where that occurred - e.g. there was an actual photo of her + DT standing together iirc; which I note that even if she faked a portion of the story, the news media source itself seems like they had done their due diligence at that point)
Whereas for the OP article I feel far more “betrayed”, by its title, seeking to place blame solely onto baby boomers who are stuck in their giant empty homes due to the mortgage rates & housing availability situation - which they themselves may not feel is optimal (higher costs of heating / cooling for one) - rather than on the real sources that are causing the actual “problems” that the title alluded to. But live & learn - and from now on I will know to heavily distrust any article coming forth from CNN, which I find so incredibly sad, but like the housing crisis itself, is simply the unfortunate truth nowadays:-(.
Fortunately it’s not quite as bad as Brietbart, at least not yet…:-(
Yeah, it’s tricky. There is a point where a headline becomes deceiving and it’s very hard to pinpoint where that is. I like your AI idea and will do some experiments along those lines.
