Boomers won’t part with their homes, and that’s a problem for young families
Boomers won’t part with their homes, and that’s a problem for young families
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 w...
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
I don't mean to sound insensitive, but I'm genuinely curious: your MIL is in expensive assisted living yet still owns a home she's no longer living in? Wouldn't the move here be to sell the home now with housing prices so high, and use the profits from it to fund the assisted living expenses?
Not insensitive at all. It isn't worth a lot as far as selling goes, but it does generate good income as a rental.
I actually agree with you, but I'm the DIL, and my husband and MIL agreed on renting.
I mean, in this case it's what works for her then, but it's literally the exact sort of thing the article is dealing with.
Worse in this case because she's owning the home, not living in it, and using it to generate passive income, specifically preventing what might have been a younger generation of homeowners from making that investment and instead forcing them into the very rental market she's profiting from.
And I'm not saying she's a bad person or a bad landlord or anything, just that this is an example supporting the piece, not an exception to it.
I actually agree with you much more than I disagree.
It's part of a family trust, meant to be passed on. Think 150 year old home that hasn't been renovated since the 60s.
It is near a university and has several bedrooms, so it's generating enough income to help pay her rent. It is literally worth more as a rental than a sell. And one day my poor kids will have to deal with this millstone around their necks.
If my MIL did sell, it would probably be torn down and replaced with an apt complex/student housing.