patrick.net

AmericanKulak says

It's been over a million most of the 21st Century.

That's national. Places like Nashville, Austin, Miami, Boise, Denver, Phoenix and the likes have been dragging the building numbers upward. Most other places are not seeing that much new building. I look at it regionally. Even Wisconsin that sucked a bunch of IL residents in doesn't have that much building. Fly over country is not really building many homes. We are but it's not remotely close to the 90's and early 2000's. So we drag national numbers down. These other hipster cities are making up for it.

I dunno.

The trend is your friend... Until it ends.

Demographics cannot be changed for at least a generation if the change was to start today. There's going to be a housing collapse nationally, an IL, CA, NJ, NY, etc. will be ground zero for the Demographic Neutron Bomb.

In ten years half the Boomers will be dead. In less than that a huge chunk will need assistance with Daily Living, including the inability to routinely walk up stairs.

As it stands now, Milennials will be well below their replacement rate. The key for replacement rate is women starting to have children by their mid 20s at the latest. If Girldads want to be grandparents, their best bet is to control their adult daughters with an iron first, vet all men, and marry them off as soon as possible, incentivizing them with bribes for have babies as soon as possible on one hand, and suggesting the problem in all marriages can be solved by having another child. Men aren't the problem, women are. Most men can be fathers in their 50 with minimal effort.

To facilitate this, near-employment (ie not in the middle of the Midwest in a one-traffic light town) housing has to be affordable early for people with modest jobs (preferrably 20% below median worker income), and market wages have to be paid (no glutting the labor market with labor, skilled or unskilled)

AmericanKulak says

Demographics cannot be changed for at least a generation if the change was to start today. There's going to be a housing collapse nationally, an IL, CA, NJ, NY, etc. will be ground zero for the Demographic Neutron Bomb.

Chicago will fold. IL as a whole is solid. Two income earners in my town can easily stay under the 3x's rule. $250-300k is the pricing here. You'd have to be a retard not to make $100-150k as a couple. If you can't do that you just rent. It's not complicated.

They're not giving out loans to losers like 2006. No crash coming where I live. FL might be another story with NY/NJ retirees moving down there. Fact is most boomers that own have equity. The kids will sell it for what they can get. A lot of them will also live to 90 and even 100. Boomer if they haven't died yet probably have 20 years left. That's a paid off house outside of a reverse mortgage. That's where your housing crash comes from. We're easily good for a decade or two.

AmericanKulak says

As it stands now, Milennials will be well below their replacement rate.

Can you cite your source for this?

Everything I read says that there are already more Millennials than boomers - with both around 72 million. There are 65 million Xers and almost 69 million Zers.

I think there will be a Z'er or M'er that will happily overpay for my (too big) house when I'm ready to sell it.

TBH - I saw an article today about this subject that claims that boomer houses aren't where M'er's want to live. It talks about "20 million homes" coming on the market as the boomers die out, but these are not in big coastal cities where the M'er's want to live. I laugh - as if M'er's are the first generation to be young in the city just long enough to hook up and get the hell out of there to somewhere safe so they can raise kids.

WookieMan says

Nashville area is going to get the shit beat out of it in my opinion.

I live outside of Nashville in a high-end area. Houses here are still selling and prices have stayed relatively flat. People are still moving here, so demand is high. Just an observation.

@AmericanKulak there’s a flaw in your argument. it assumes society will not readjust itself. it will. we lived as species for thousands of years without needing permanent inflation to keep going. So i think you worry too much over something that’s not actual danger.

porkchopXpress says

WookieMan says

Nashville area is going to get the shit beat out of it in my opinion.
I live outside of Nashville in a high-end area. Houses here are still selling and prices have stayed relatively flat. People are still moving here, so demand is high. Just an observation.

Future prediction on my end. If you can make $40-60k/house you tend to over build. Demand is there now no doubt. But I see places like Nashville and Austin taking a beating in the next 5 years at some point.

Where I live in IL is cheap. Nashville as a city can eat a turd. Only driven on the highway through the burbs, but doesn't look bad. Similar to suburban Chicago. Prices have a low ceiling I guess is my point in some of these areas. It's going to come down. If I could pee on a city Nashville and NOLA would be in the top 5. I won't visit San Fransisco or New York ever again, so not on the list at all. Even if the family wants to see it. I'll get a hotel 60 miles out and they can check it out.

FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says

AmericanKulak there’s a flaw in your argument. it assumes society will not readjust itself. it will. we lived as species for thousands of years without needing permanent inflation to keep going. So i think you worry too much over something that’s not actual danger.

Casey-Shiller research the opposite: there has always been inflation as far back as reliable records are available. Yes, even when money was made out of fancy metals.