1. Notice that "large homes" and not defined.
2. It was the boomer dream to own a home and then retire with a paid off mortgage.
That said, seniors moving out of 2 story homes makes sense, and they don't have to downsize, just get a large ranch.
However, I believe when people look at all the crap they've accumulated over the years they don't know how to get rid of it so it's easier just to stay in the current home and let the heirs deal with it.
Only the liberal elites are allowed to have "compounds" like Kennebunkport and Hyannis Port as getaways for the families?
How many Hallmark Christmas movies take place in a large home that the families get together at for their annual reunions?
-PJ
...they're keeping their high-paying jobs, too! ...and I can't get a promotion until they retire!!! ... and I have to pay for their social security!!!
Waaahhh!!!
-PJ
That's how it's done. You buy an entry-level home and then roll the accumulated equity into a larger home, effectively extending the term of the mortgage but keeping the payment close to the same.
The problem is that the younger generations want instant gratification; they want the end result now, without doing what it takes to get there.
If they complain that it's too hard or that costs are higher now and wages haven't kept up, then look in the mirror and question whom you voted for that got things that way.
-PJ
The key phrase: “ and many more homes need to be built”
The left has been doing everything they can to make this harder and more expensive. That and allowing millions of illegals to come in combine to tighten supply and drive up demand.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
The author must be a Marx fan.
Bet he really liked Dr Zhivago when the commies moved a pack of rats into a large house.
Yeah. That's where I am.
I did a non-cash out refinance a number of years ago. My mortgage payment is less than the lowest rental rate I could find for a one-bedroom apartment.
This is a far=fetched idea but maybe, just maybe, this situation has to do with the fact that boomers have worked and saved for over 40 years while millennials are in the early stages of their careers. At one time, us boomers were in the same relative position with respect to our grandparents and parents. We didn’t whine about it, like it would have done us any good as our grandparents and parents went through the Great Depression. We just sucked it up and went to work.
The downsizing problem is the lifetime of stuff people acquire and what to do with it. While living it is their treasure, when gone it is someone's junk to get rid of and there is a lot of it.
The other problem, a bigger one, is some of us wait too long to downsize and by then we just don't have another move and all that goes with it in us.
There is probably a business opportunity for someone that can figure out how to efficiently and respectfully go through a life time of stuff and dispose of it but not in a landfill. Recycle and repurpose would be nice. After that someone would take care of all the relocation arrangements. It would be nice if there was an option to move into a downsized neighborhood that is not a ghetto but instead a single home retirement community with option for extended care / help. Dell Web is not the answer for me. If it is a problem and money can be made someone will figure it out. Money is the problem though. Capitalists want to make arbitrage level profits all at once then spring for the exit and the next boondoggle.
this LENGTHY article by the ultra-hard-leftist Biz Insider is one gigantic lament that some people own more stuff than other people, and SOMETHING ought to be done to redistribute said stuff ...
interesting that they don’t dare mention the issue of those ultra-wealthy who own multiple homes and/or GINORMOUS palaces that have the most “unnecessary” bedrooms, but instead focus on the upper middle class ... after all, such mention would be biting the hands of the insanely-super-ultra-wealthy who are the ones most in favor of socialism [for other people, of course]
I think a lot of this comes from tax policy warping the market. California is the most egregious example because property taxes are locked in when the house was sold last. If you bought a house in the 70s for $20k that is now worth $1.2M and might happily downsize to a house worth $500k you aren’t going to because you would get hit with a massive property tax increase. It keeps a lot of homes better suited to families locked up with seniors who don’t need them.
A “misallocation of the housing supply.”
Spoken like a dyed in the wool communist.
I definitely agree with your last statement.
That being said, I’ve lived in my present ‘large’ house for 27 years. It is convenient to shopping, hospitals and the Interstate while being in a quiet residential neighbor with big lots and mature trees. The neighborhood has been turning over recently as older people die or downsize and we’ve been lucky that the new residents have all been young working couples with a couple of kids (The joke is, based on fact, that they are all Catholic, German-American engineers with two kids). They take good care of the properties and are friendly. I see no reason to leave my home for an assisted living apartment. I’m 72 and still cut my grass, maintain my pool and do most of the little fix up things inside. I don’t want to walk unless I’m walking my dog, I drive. And I even go downstairs to the basement to exercise because that is where my home gym equipment is located.
My late wife and I built our first house when we were 28 y/o. Prior to that we lived in an apartment for 6 years while WE paid off our student loans. I’ve worked hard all my life so I could retire comfortably, and part of that is to have a nice house in a nice neighborhood with no mortgage. Mission accomplished. I feel sorry for younger kids today trying to have what I’ve had, but don’t blame me, blame the democrat government you all vote for because they’ll allow you to keep killing your babies and will fight climate change. Elections and lifestyles have consequences. In real life everybody doesn’t get a trophy. Those that work hard, save and plan get trophies. Those that don’t ask the government to punish the ones who do to make things fair.
I’d be really happy if the Marxist social planners would just butt out of my life. If I decide I want to downsize I will on my terms, but I think it’s illustrative that their thoughts went immediately to higher taxes to force me out. Somethings never change.
Misallocation? I don't remember my house being "allocated" to me in the first place. They must mean it in the same manner as a government "buy-back" of weapons ... how can they "buy-back" something that they never owned in the first place?
Why would they want to move?
Ha, ha. That is exactly where my wife and I are at. We have a 2500 sqft house. About a year ago we seriously looked at downsizing to a 1600 sqft house (of better quality and location). But.... 1) My wife wants the bedrooms for when the kids come home. 2) Moving is a pain the in the butt. 3) We have too much stuff that we want to keep. We decided to stay planted. We have been getting rid of stuff, but we have a long way to go.
We had neighbors that downsized, but they did it deliberately. They spent a year getting rid of stuff. They actually closed off rooms after they were emptied. Then they downsized. I was talking to the husband a few months ago, he said that he didn't think it was worth it. They could afford the old home so saving money was not an issue. They got rid of stuff that they now want back. Lastly, they have to rent hotel rooms when the kids come to visit (They have a large family.).
On a last note, about five years before my in-laws died I was talking to my mother-in-law and told her that she had a lot of stuff that they needed to get rid of. My mother-in-law smiled and said, "No, that will be your problem."
Heh, we built no. 2 larger than no. 1. Nowhere in this article is mentioned that you need surplus bedrooms on occasion. A dollar says the two female 'authors' are childless...