Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
FYI: Dear Grandchildren, At least a decade before any of you are likely to be born, I’m writing to tell you things about home and family that took me decades to understand. These days, Americans aren’t so interested in buying homes. The proportion of people who own one is around its lowest level in three decades. Regards, Ted http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/11/27/a-meditation-on-the-real-value-of-a-home/tab/print/
It is worrisome that younger generations are saddled with student debts (so called financial aids). Difficult for them to get into starter home market and having to save for the 5% down payment. There seem to be fewer rent to own opportunties than in the past.
Kinda thought it was an out-of-place article. Zweig's column is supposed to be about finances, not other-than-financial stuff. I think Zweig just doesn't 'get it' re the circumstances of young people today vs when his father bought that house. As Swen mentioned, a lot of young folks already have a 'mortgage' -- student loans. Beyond that, as jobs are less secure/certain now, it's really smart of people to not be tied down to a house. Renters are more easily movable than homeowners. Go West young man! (or East, or North or South) -- go wherever the jobs are.
Beyond the job-market, some things about the housing stock today vs. mid-20th century: a) thanks to ZIRP & crowding in cities due to unfettered immigration, home prices are much less of a bargain relative to current income than in the 50s/60's. b) Usually newly-built 'starter homes' are much bigger (and costlier) than in the mid-20th century. Homebuilders just don't like building smaller homes -- not enough profit in the business. c) I suspect (and yes, its a hunch) that the tax/fee burden on homes in most jurisdictions is higher now than in the mid-20th century. Tax jurisdictions slowly attach new fees over time. Condo HOAs are pretty ridiculous for lawn-mowing services.
As for the sense of permanence and emotional attachment which Zweig alludes to, permanence is an illusion. Ask yourselves: Has the neighborhood of your YOUTH stayed the same, or gone downhill? Neighborhoods (other than very rural or very elite ones) generally undergo a gradual -- or not so gradual -- and persistent decline. Of the 3 metro areas I've lived in, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Dallas, the pattern is noticeable and pronounced.
Objectively, a house is a bunch of sticks and stones sitting atop a plot of dirt. Best not to get too attached to it.
An aside, even when Zweig stays 'on-point', his columns are seldom as satisfying as Jonathan Clements or Brett Arends, both of whom seem to have quit the WSJ.
Comments
Kinda thought it was an out-of-place article. Zweig's column is supposed to be about finances, not other-than-financial stuff. I think Zweig just doesn't 'get it' re the circumstances of young people today vs when his father bought that house. As Swen mentioned, a lot of young folks already have a 'mortgage' -- student loans. Beyond that, as jobs are less secure/certain now, it's really smart of people to not be tied down to a house. Renters are more easily movable than homeowners. Go West young man! (or East, or North or South) -- go wherever the jobs are.
Beyond the job-market, some things about the housing stock today vs. mid-20th century: a) thanks to ZIRP & crowding in cities due to unfettered immigration, home prices are much less of a bargain relative to current income than in the 50s/60's. b) Usually newly-built 'starter homes' are much bigger (and costlier) than in the mid-20th century. Homebuilders just don't like building smaller homes -- not enough profit in the business. c) I suspect (and yes, its a hunch) that the tax/fee burden on homes in most jurisdictions is higher now than in the mid-20th century. Tax jurisdictions slowly attach new fees over time. Condo HOAs are pretty ridiculous for lawn-mowing services.
As for the sense of permanence and emotional attachment which Zweig alludes to, permanence is an illusion. Ask yourselves: Has the neighborhood of your YOUTH stayed the same, or gone downhill? Neighborhoods (other than very rural or very elite ones) generally undergo a gradual -- or not so gradual -- and persistent decline. Of the 3 metro areas I've lived in, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Dallas, the pattern is noticeable and pronounced.
Objectively, a house is a bunch of sticks and stones sitting atop a plot of dirt. Best not to get too attached to it.
An aside, even when Zweig stays 'on-point', his columns are seldom as satisfying as Jonathan Clements or Brett Arends, both of whom seem to have quit the WSJ.