[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.

[freetime2]

Indeed these are scary times. I think people are right to be on edge, and I'm sympathetic for anyone who is out of work (I may soon count myself among them). But so were the dot-com crash, the 2008 financial crisis, and Covid-19. "Outsourcing" was the big scare word when I started my career. With AI, things may truly be different this time. But it's early days, and we won't really know for sure how things shake out until we're looking back on the other side.

[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.

[jjav]

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

> It can if you have an adjustable rate mortgage.

Yes, that is true. Also, ARMs are rare and always a bad idea. The norm is a 30 year fixed rate mortgage. Which means the mortgage can never go up. But you can refinance it down, if opportunity arises.

> 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.

Sure, if we change the goalposts then we're talking about something else.

Dining out may get more expensive (I fail to see how that is relevant to the mortgage), but the fixed rate mortgage never goes up.

[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.

[freetime2]

I would say your particular case is the exception, not the rule. If I look at my graduating class, there's a pretty clear trend where people who screwed around and did drugs in their 20s are still generally screwing around and doing drugs - and quite often pretty unhappy (and sadly a few close friends have passed away from overdose). And people who hustled after graduation are much more likely to be married, own a home, have kids, etc. To be clear - I'm NOT saying that having a home, a family, or money are either necessary or sufficient to be happy, but in general I view it as a pretty decent heuristic. This tends to hold true both for people who pursued white collar careers, or who learned a trade.

You could easily get away with a "gap year" between school and starting a career, but multiple years of screwing around seems pretty hard to come back from. There are exceptions of course, but I can't think of many. One relatively recent example was the rise of coding "boot camps" - where I know of several people who were able to change careers and land high-paying gigs. Or the more traditional path would be serving in the military, getting a free college education, and then going on to a successful career from there.

Has it actually gotten harder to do that recently? It would be tough for me to say without some data. Certainly any time the job market is tight, and there is strong competition for jobs, it's going to put non-traditional candidates at a disadvantage and make it harder to change careers.

[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?