[Aurornis]

> It's also funny to see the "the economy is roaring!" "incomes are up!". Great, have they increased by as much as inflation? Can I afford a home?

Gen Z home ownership is outpacing millenial home ownership at the same age. There's a lot of denial around this topic because everywhere you turn there's a Reddit post or news headline about how housing is impossible to afford.

> Pay's less.

Less than the narrow window of post-COVID mania pay maybe, but inflation adjusted wages are actually up over the long term.

> Nobody can take a break. Pressure's on.

Annual working hours per worker is flat or slightly down from when your mom's generation made up most of the workforce https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-working-hours-per-...

When it comes to happiness, the numbers don't actually matter though. Perceptions do. Your and your mom's worldview that everything "isn't working any more", that young people can't possibly be buying homes, that real wages are down, and that working hours are up are actually very common ideas, especially if you zoom in on demographics who read a lot of certain types of social media (Reddit especially!) where classic doomerism prevails.

[HDBaseT]

Home "ownership" is misleading. You don't own a home until you've paid it off.

Younger people are getting into more debt, for much longer in order to be able to survive.

When we start comparing the numbers (i.e, house paid off, even reflected as a percentage paid off, relative to age) the numbers reveal the real crisis.

Anecdotally, I know tons of 20-30 year olds getting into the property market (with insane levels of debt with almost impossible loan lengths) simply because if they don't do it now, there is a high chance homeless is the next option.

[jjav]

> You don't own a home until you've paid it off.

That's not quite true. If you want to think that way, then you'd never own it because you'll always pay property taxes so the paying never stops.

But as soon as you buy a home it is your asset. Yes, you have a debt against it. But you are the owner. Go look up the owner in the county records and it is you.

[Jcowell]

We both know the pay off in this instance is referring to mortgages

[greenavocado]

To be pedantic what most people consider ownership is a revocable land lease from the state government which you forfeit if you fail to pay protection money to the gov.

True ownership is non-existent.

[gloosx]

>True ownership is non-existent.

Why? The military power owns things by enforcing their ownership. This is, in fact, the true ownership.

You have to pay taxes to own land so the power which is on your side can prevent another power to re-own it.

If you don't pay taxes to the power which is on your side, why would it allow you to own stuff and provide free protection? Out of good will?

That's how the world works, ownership without the power behind it is non-existent, as well as power without the money behind it is non-existent. When there are enough powers balancing each other, stable systems emerge, and we all can enjoy some few decades of peace and prosperity.

[lovich]

You could always seastead!

But yes, you do not truly own anything unless you are a sovereign power.

[cman1444]

There are plenty of entities that don't pay property taxes. Charities, religious facilities, some disabled people, spouses of fallen service members.

[givemeethekeys]

> spouses of fallen service

What if they get remarried?

[smitty1e]

A widow receiving a military pension will not uncommonly "live in sin" before losing the monthly check.

Which is a pointer to the "real", general issue: materialism.

Ain't no joy in $tuff.

Joy is of the Lord.

[yongjik]

Sovereign citizen? On my Hacker News?

...It's more likely than you think !!

[greenavocado]

I never claimed that. It is clear whose jurisdiction we are in.

[whatisthiseven]

Can you link a source for gen z with higher homeowner rates than millennial, st the same age?

Because redfin shows that just is very clearly not true

https://www.redfin.com/news/homeownership-rate-by-generation...

[RickS]

That chart is comparing point in present time, not point in generation-relative time. IE zoomers at ~25 mills at ~40. If you were to approximately age sync the red and yellow lines on that chart, by moving their start dates to the same point, the red line is higher.

[ribosometronome]

There's several charts, the second is: Gen Zers, Millennials Less Likely to Own Homes Than Their Parents at the Same Age which does a direct "at same age" comparison and showed that Gen Z started off slightly stronger than millennials but fell behind.

I do wonder about how they're calculating some of this. It looks like in the chart is saying 16% of the cohort born between 1981 and 1996 (aka millennials) owned a home in 2000. I wouldn't even expect 16% of that group to be over 18.

[corysama]

> If you were to approximately age sync the red and yellow lines on that chart, by moving their start dates to the same point, the red line is higher.

Like this: https://imgur.com/a/d7stXVN

[epicureanideal]

Thanks for sharing! Seems to show that both are doing poorly relative to earlier generations, and it doesn’t seem Gen Z is greatly (or much at all) outpacing millennials.

[switchbak]

And as usual, no one cares about Gen X :)

[oofda]

Which is crazy cause GenX is management as everything falls apart. GenX is 50-65 year olds running everything and everything sucks now.

GenX is the big tech leaders, the insurance CEO that got got, the EpiPen CEO jacking up prices, senior teachers and admins as student grades slide into the toilet, the uncreative repetitive Hollywood decision makers. Hollywood actors slapping each other live on camera and hacking their faces up to pretend they are still 25. They manage the construction companies that refuse to build more homes.

As an older Millennial it's not a shock they ended up such poor leaders. Working with GenX has always sucked.

[tonyedgecombe]

At least you aren’t hated like us boomers. Apparently everything wrong in the world is down to us.

[grafmax]

> inflation adjusted wages are actually up over the long term

Inflation is a tool for monetary policy. It doesn't track cost of living. For example, if luxury items become more affordable, but housing prices rise, inflation-adjusted pay doesn't capture this kind of negative effect on the working class.

[pjscott]

It doesn't track cost of living? The way it's calculated is all about cost of living!

In the US, the official inflation numbers are based on a "basket of goods" meant to be representative of a typical person's spending. Housing currently makes up about a third of the basket, while luxury items are a fairly small percentage. Here's a pretty well-written summary, albeit with numbers from 2022:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/01/24/as-inflat...

Changes in housing prices have a large effect on the BLS's inflation figures. Downward changes in the price of luxury goods have a small (and bounded) effect. Even if all luxury goods became free, the reduction in inflation wouldn't be all that much.

[grafmax]

CPI is an aggregate measure which munges a bunch of things together under a single statistic.

In fact, the cost of necessities has overall risen faster than the cost of discretionary goods. This has been generally true since the mid-1990s; prior to that, inflation differences were much smaller across income groups despite lower income groups spending more of their income on necessities. In some periods like the post-COVID housing and energy price shocks, the differential effect of real inflation on basic necessities has been even greater.

Even "small" effects compound over time. For example, when someone in a low bracket loses 10% purchasing power after many years, the net economic stress they experience is much greater than for someone at a high bracket. Differential inflation of necessities vs discretionary goods magnifies this.

[derangedHorse]

Housing is actually ~44% in 2024, but the subcategory of 'Shelter' is ~35% for CPI-U. 'Shelter' is further broken down into rent and owner's equivalent of rent. 'Owners' equivalent rent of residences' is ~26% for CPI-U and ~21% for CPI-W, 'Rent of primary residence' is around 7% and 10% respectively.

Depending on how one live their lifestyle, the 'inflation' calculation can greatly vary in relevance.

Source: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/home.htm

[smallmancontrov]

Nope. CPI is an excellent differential indicator -- "how much did a typical person's cost of living rise this year" -- but it's a terrible integral indicator if you compound it because it's blind to the difference between forced and voluntary substitution. If essentials inflate faster than wages, money_in=money_out drives a reduction in nonessentials -- forced substitution -- and the CPI basket adjustments launder the forced substitution into voluntary substitution.

Well, "launder" is a strong word that the hardworking bureaucrats at BLS do not deserve, but the people who use CPI as a deflater so that they can wave around graphs "proving" that things have never been better absolutely deserve it, so I'll keep it in.

Bonus meme: the American Dream was not to Owner Imputed Rent a house.

[jrumbut]

Yes, it also takes into account rising quality. For an example, in 2010 I rented a rat hole apartment for $x from a fisherman who had inherited the building. He never did maintenance (he was out to sea most of the year) and he never raised rent.

A large company bought the building after I moved out. Ten years later, the same apartment with a fresh coat of paint and new countertops was back on the market for a rent of about three times $x.

The CPI can say that apartment, since it was refurbished, increased in quality and so it wasn't really a price increase of the same good from $x to $3x. This offers a "degree of freedom" to adjust the CPI itself (since quality is inherently subjective), and may be a big part of why CPI does not reflect the lived experience.

I didn't care one bit about paint or countertops when I rented that apartment and I assume broke young adults today don't either. At the time I wanted the cheapest place to live in the area and this was it. It still is one of the cheapest places, but you need three times as much money to rent it.

[dripdry45]

It’s also been toyed with and twisted since about 1983. The actual standard of living for Americans has generally been falling since then.

[jaredklewis]

Which changes to CPI since 1983 do you most object to?

How are you measuring the "actual standard of living?”

[ryukoposting]

> Gen Z home ownership is outpacing millenial home ownership at the same age.

The median Zoomer is in their mid-20s. You're comparing rounding errors.

[traderj0e]

Yeah, a house is always affordable to someone, and it's not like all the single-family homes are owned by huge landlords renting out. Some areas have become more sought-after, so young adults there are finding that they can't afford to buy a house where they grew up.

[amluto]

> Yeah, a house is always affordable to someone

It’s actually not true that a house is affordable to the person living in it.

First, plenty of people own houses, paid-off even, but have little else in the way of income or assets, and, other than not wanting to move, they might be much better off if the home magically turned into cash.

Second, taxes. In the US, in HCOL markets, selling your house may involve large amounts of capital gains tax, and in California, you risk losing your low Property 13 basis.

I suspect that, in markets like Palo Alto, a lot of houses are owned by people who could not credibly afford those houses if they were to sell and then decide to buy an equivalent house next door.

Sure, someone can afford your house, but that’s a nearly vacuous statement.

[abustamam]

My in-laws bought a house in the East Bay area in 2000 for about $400k. Worth about $1.5m (according to zillow and similar homes in the neighborhood that have recently sold). Fully paid off now, and they're retired.

If they were to sell it, they'd have to pay taxes on 1.1m of "profit." sure they can write off renovations and deduct $500k but that's still a lot of taxes to pay!

So yeah, they wouldn't be able to sell and rebuy even their own house because uncle sam just took about $100k on the sale of their house.

[anamax]

The first $500k is federal tax-free. The rest is taxed at long-term capital gains rates.

IIRC, California taxes that $1.1M as ordinary income.

[abustamam]

$1.1m is a lot of money to pay taxes on for middle class retirees!

My point is that they wouldn't be able to rebuy their house, since they'd pay taxes on the "profit," and then need to get another mortgage at 6%.

When I was shopping for a house one of the sellers had a special exclusion where they'd roll the proceeds into a special account that they'd use to buy another house so they won't pay taxes on the profit. I think it's quite strange that RE investors get that exclusion but if it's your primary residence you don't. I feel like it should be the other way around.

[camgunz]

> Gen Z home ownership is outpacing millenial home ownership at the same age. There's a lot of denial around this topic because everywhere you turn there's a Reddit post or news headline about how housing is impossible to afford.

It's more the case that Gen Z is giving up on having the homes that Millennials want in the places they want them. They're buying fixer uppers, moving into 3rd/4th tier cities, etc. They also have some benefits millennials didn't have: inheritances and way less student loan debt.

You can look at this in a number of ways, but it's clear we didn't solve the problem of "so you want to live in NYC/LA/Chicago/SF/Seattle".

https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/how-gen-z-...

[tech_ken]

> Gen Z home ownership is outpacing millenial home ownership at the same age. There's a lot of denial around this topic.

Yeah but aren't they putting down less/leveraging themselves deeper?

edit: also it seems like the millenial/genZ divide here is on the order of like 1-5%, whereas the gap between either of those generations and boomers/genX is more like 10%+. It's good that the trend hasn't gotten worse in recent history, but I think it's pretty inarguable that the housing market is much worse than it was 30 years ago.

[tempaccount5050]

From what I understand, yes. My 24 year old coworker makes $65k/year and has a $2200/mo mortgage. It's an old starter home in the Midwest, nothing fancy. It stresses him out to the point of not going to a happy hour once in a while unless there's a buy one get one deal or something or I offer to buy (which I do happily). No vacations, no eating out, no fun. It's super sad to see. He talks about being in his prime but being unable to enjoy it at all.

[freetime2]

For what it's worth, when I was 24 I was only really focused on my career and didn't really have much of a social life. It wasn't until my late 20s and 30s that I started being able to comfortably afford drinks with coworkers after work, travel, etc.

A $2200/mo mortgage on a $65k salary does indeed sound like a stretch. But even having a mortgage at all at 24 is pretty impressive, and he's probably still a ways off from his peak earning potential. Then he might have a bit more income for discretional spending.

In short - yeah it's a grind, but it sounds like he's making responsible decisions and hopefully they will start to pay dividends in another 5-10 years. And your 20s is when you are most able to grind it out - before kids (if that's something you want) start demanding a huge chunk of your time and energy, and before work starts to feel like a slog after you've been at it for 20 years.

[ElProlactin]

> But even having a mortgage at all at 24 is pretty impressive...

Impressive in what way?

> ...and he's probably still a ways off from his peak earning potential.

That's an assumption, but even if it's probably true, to what end? The issue most working Americans face is that the cost of living rises faster than their wages.

> Then he might have a bit more income for discretional spending.

So...earn more so that you can spend more. This, in a nutshell, is the insanity of America's consumer culture.

> In short - yeah it's a grind, but it sounds like he's making responsible decisions and hopefully they will start to pay dividends in another 5-10 years.

Young people who are fortunate enough to be in a position to make "responsible decisions" should obviously do so (within reason) but this "grind for the future" mindset is also part of the insanity of American culture.

There are places in this world where people in their 20s can enjoy their youth without having to worry that doing so could doom them to financial distress for the rest of their lives.

[freetime2]

I don't think that working hard or investing for the future are insanity.

I also didn't mean to imply that I didn't enjoy my early 20s. My job was difficult but also interesting and fulfilling. For recreation I was into fitness and the outdoors, which can be done on the cheap. I was in a serious relationship with my now spouse, so I wasn't lonely. It was a very fulfilling time - we just lived very frugally.

Not saying that everyone needs to follow the same path. Or that we can't do better. Or that times haven't changed since then. Just that the parent's example doesn't sound too far off from my own experience in my early twenties, so I don't necessarily see them as doomed to a life of misery. You can certainly do worse.

[ElProlactin]

The question is really what "working hard" and "investing for the future" entail. I think it's clear that many young Americans don't have the opportunity to "work hard" and "invest for the future", and even among those who do, a growing number struggle and lack confidence that their efforts will produce the intended results.

Times are changing. HNers tend to be among the more fortunate in American society but even today, a STEM degree doesn't guarantee anyone a cushy, high-paying tech job.

[jjav]

> That's an assumption, but even if it's probably true, to what end? The issue most working Americans face is that the cost of living rises faster than their wages.

Mortgage never rises (in the US), can only fall (if you refinance when rates dip). So that locks down the housing cost. In that sense, inflation helps you in the long run.

[ElProlactin]

What do you mean "mortgage never rises" in the US?

It can if you have an adjustable rate mortgage. But that's not all. Lots of people leverage their equity for cash (HELOCs, etc.) to remodel, take a vacation, buy more junk, etc. So your house can easily become a financial boondoggle.

And your mortgage isn't the only cost. There's maintenance and repairs, property-related taxes (which can go up), healthcare, food, gas, automobiles, the price of basic necessities, a meal out, etc.

Tons of people are living in homes that have increased substantially in value, making them "rich", but they're still under financial pressure if not outright struggling because the prices of everything else they want and need in life have increased faster than their wages.

And then what happens when the company you work for reports record profits and...lays you off into a market where tens of thousands of people who do what you do have also been laid off?

The problem with the modern American economy is that the path to "success" for the average worker gets narrower and narrower. You can "win" in one or two areas and still lose in the end. Very easily. Happens to tons of people.

[tempaccount5050]

Yeah, I agree, but it makes me think of my 20s when I was paying $275 for rent with one roommate, working part time and easily making it work. I worked nights chucking boxes in a warehouse and was able to take a vacation to Jamaica. This guy is a sysadmin, helping to keep a billion dollar company online and can't afford to go to Florida for a few days. It's a raw deal and I hate it for this generation.

[freetime2]

> it makes me think of my 20s when I was paying $275 for rent with one roommate

I was in the SF Bay Area and spending $1600/mo to rent a studio apartment in my 20s, and even that looked like a bargain compared to the people that graduated a few years after me. And my starting salary was probably higher than your friend's when adjusted for inflation, but not by much.

Not saying it's right - the US needs to do better when it comes to affordable housing. Just that expensive housing is not exactly a recent phenomenon, and your friend's situation is not hopeless.

[tempaccount5050]

What I'm trying to say is that I did things the "wrong way". Worked part time, invested nothing, played in a band, ate drugs, got laid. And it was really fucking easy. I was happy as hell. This was a long time ago, but I was able to blow my 20s away and still land just fine when I started my "career" in my 30s. These days, you can do everything right and still not be happy. We all make our choices of course, but I feel like if you don't hit the grind immediately these days, you're fucked.

[trhway]

fast-forward 15-20 years. He has most probably paid out his mortgage (salary growth/inflation, etc. so most people i know paid their mortgages in about 15 years, and some by that time got second or even 3rd property - the observations are over the last 30 years here, included are only salaried employees and excluded are the ones who made "exits" which is completely different game level). Even if he is still paying his mortgage, his non-homeowner coworkers would be by that time paying $4K+ in rent while he is still paying 2200 (out of at least 100K+ salary by that time). He can have cats/dogs while it is a big issue for renters. Add the land/home appreciation - about double. And if he gets tired of such comfortable life, he can always HELOC and venture into say a startup, all while still may be not even 40 (and with great health as no drinking&eating out :).

[bsder]

Until he gets laid off and now is in a complete panic because he MUST make that mortgage payment.

I have watched this scenario dissolve marriages over and over among my friends.

You cannot assume your job is stable for 15 years nowadays.

[lovich]

thats a cool assumption.

Our industries are routinely telling people who just spent 4-6 years in training that tough shit, you picked the wrong career.

You are looking at this with a lens of stability that no longer exists, which I personally believe is a major component about why everyone is so unhappy.

You cant just reach a level of life that you are comfortable with and stay there anymore. Its a constant cycle of learning new skills that are then useless then learning more skills that are then useless, ad on infinitum.

[carlosjobim]

> Add the land/home appreciation - about double.

Birth rates have collapsed completely, so this gravy train is ending very soon. There won't be another sucker to buy the real estate, because new buyers aren't being born.

[intended]

If we are talking hypotheticals, then why not just assume he wins a lottery? That’s Easier than assuming they can venture into startup land?

[vannevar]

>Gen Z home ownership is outpacing millenial home ownership at the same age.

Not according to this Redfin report (also linked by others in the thread):

"Take 28-year-olds as an example: 38.3% of 28-year-old Gen Zers owned their home in 2025, compared to 42.5% of Gen Xers when they were 28 and 44.4% of baby boomers when they were 28." (There is an accompanying chart in the linked report.)

https://www.redfin.com/news/homeownership-rate-by-generation...

That seems to show a pretty clear decline in home affordability over time, for people of the same age.

[globalnode]

nice debunk, thats just a wall of words that besides likely being wrong, has no evidence and goes against what i hear people saying all the time.

edit: besides, happiness is not about money. freedom of expression and free/impartial institutions are at all time lows across the western world. which as we speak is in an arms race to be the biggest and best surveillance system it can be.

[api]

I can’t grasp the math. How are young people buying homes? Is the average income now over $100k?

Or are they taking out mortgages they can never pay off, meaning they are almost renting not on a path to actually buying or owning and most of their payments are interest.

If that’s the case they are renting a leveraged financial position.

Previous generations could own homes. As in pay them off.

[SmirkingRevenge]

The interest is fixed in a typical mortgage, so just as long as you reliably pay the mortgage payments, you will own the home eventually when the term is complete.

Owners only really get screwed if their home value goes down and they need to sell for some reason.

Prices are usually going up (at least on a long enough time frame), so most owners make out pretty well when selling even with little home equity.

[api]

Sure, I know that, but even a small down payment on crazy home prices is insane let alone the monthly payment.

I suspect these stats are nationwide. There are places you can still actually buy a home without an exit event. Maybe genZ has wised up and is avoiding high cost of living traps and that’s how.

[arkis22]

one thing to also consider is that maybe the younger kids who are capable of buying houses may be getting their down payment from the bank of mom and dad. not good for people thinking things are fair

[reddozen]

This reminds me that people only care about what you tell them to care about. Grocery store prices was the first thing out of any "undecided muh both sides" voters mouth in 2024.

But on Jan 20, 2025 it was magically fixed instantly despite grocery store prices increasing because voters decided to elect in blanket import taxes. No one cares about these issues. They just care about the aesthetic.

[FpUser]

Cut the bullshit please. I bought house in 1998 for $200K, guess what's the price is now. And salaries did not all that much since then. Definitely not 5 times.