One key thing you missed: many households in the 80's were single income while most households today are dual income. So the situation is more grossly skewed than even the data shows. Then those same old people ask why young people today aren't having kids when our effective incomes with two people working full time are less than one person working + one staying at home back in the day.
Glad someone mentioned this. Very much forgotten that a measure commonly used to extinguish arguments around housing cost is household income, not a more empirical median income.
The feminists fought long and hard to get women into the mainstream workplace. Once the dual income household was well established it just pushed housing prices higher and higher. Everyone had double the disposable income to spend. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
Not to mention that the high end of the income scale is much higher now than in 1985. The median household income is much lower than $94,000. It is closer to $74,000. This will change the results drastically. The rich have much higher incomes compared to the middle class than in 1985 and it pushes up the average. Regular people are much more reflected by the median.
Not to mention also that the house prices as a multiple of income was lower, so people had the avenue of saving a bigger down payment quicker than home prices were rising.
Yeah, because that average includes all the worthless podunk hillybilly crackshacks in the middle of fucking nowhere. The average home price in California is like $975,000
The answers in Vienna & Singapore. STATE builds housing as a right supported by various mechanisms. Result: 90% home ownership in Singapore & 80% of Vienna live in State Housing.
Homes should be shelter to live in, not investment vehicles. It's unfixable as long as the people who own property both have far larger political influence and use all that power to entrench a system that doesn't allow new building to keep pace with demand to continuously balloon their investment/home's value.
yes, while one cannot fully prohibit investment purchases, the regulations are killing the supply chain which is the main problem. Plus, there is this vicious cycle of people not wanting to live in small towns, and therefore those small town degenerate even though their home prices are relatively cheap. People should seriously consider other places than big cities.
No financial institution should be allowed to own 40% or more of the single family homes. This recession is paving a way for a monopoly on homes to further rid of the middle class. It would be wise for most Americans to not sell their homes if they're able to.I want to buy houses cheap in 2024 and maybe invest in stocks. When's the best time to buy stocks? Some say they make a lot, others warn the market is risky. Advice?
From my own experience, getting expert advice is crucial to avoiding mistakes and losses in the stock market. The crisis could get worse as low wages, high costs, and rising rents make it hard to save. Many middle-class Americans risk an uncertain retirement without owning a home.
Accurate asset allocation is crucial. Some use hedging or defensive assets in their portfolio for market downturns. Seeking financial advice is vital. This approach has kept me financially secure for over five years, with a return on investment of nearly $1 million.
Considering that: A) In the western world, the birth rate of the native population has fallen below the replacement rate. B) The population growth in the west is largely due to immigration and only to a lesser extent, aging of the population. C) Based on Danish statistics, the net contribution of the majority of 3rd world immigrants on the GDP of their host country is a negative one (I don't expect it to be much different elsewhere). D) Immigrants require housing as well, and therefore essentially compete for the same space. E) The populations of the host nations were largely ignored during this age of mass immigration, they never asked for it. The contours of a solution therefore seem clear to me, and from what I've seen from the UK recently, to many there as well. However, CZcams community guidelines usually prevent much of a discussion beyond this point.
@@natheayn6111 You're probably right considering how GDP is calculated. Let me put it differently: According to the 2021 report: 3rd world migrants collectively make a net-negative lifetime financial contribution.
@@natheayn6111I wanted to say that you're probably right considering how GDP is calculated, and because of that I also wanted to update this specific point. However, saying something along the lines that people from a specific group on average, make a net-negative financial contribution over their lifetime, triggered the algorithm. As usual, it made my post disappear. It didn't contain rude language or anything, just facts. If only the algorithm was so active in fighting all the spam in the comment section...
@@EatRawGarlic Understandable. Unfortunately free speech does not exist on the internet. CBC blocks comments on housing and on contentious videos of the Olympics, but wide open on Phil Wiz. Reddit threads always locked and much more... 🤔
overlooked points: 1) at the same time that it costs more up front relative to incomes in order purchase a home, it is more difficult to save up even the same amount relative to income. Personal savings rates are much lower today than they were in 1985. Notable reasons that it’s harder today to save up the same fraction of a year’s income are the higher rents relative to incomes and the large student loan debt burden that essentially didn’t exist in 1985. 2) were HOA fees mentioned in the video? Most homes today have an HOA fee tacked onto the costs of home ownership hat we’re mentioned 3) buying when a larger portion of the cost of ownership is from interest is a massive advantage that buyers in the 80s benefitted from -unlocks the option of huge savings by paying it off early -gives accelerated home price appreciation, since from a starting point of high interest rates, interest rates are more likely to trend down over time than up. As did in fact occur, and which enhanced the appreciation of the asset
You forgot a massive factor in the 80s they didn't have all the mass of taxes that we do now like luxury tax 7.35% gas tax , much higher property taxes , rain water tax in some states , many other . With a decaying $ with wages that didnt keep up 😂😂😂😂
@IzzetSuleimani they were but you also got to keep more of your pay. Never underestimate how much money the governments helps itself to off the top. I can say this as I left a state that had income tax. If I was still there at my old salary I'd be broke after. But in current state I can actually make it.
A key factor of high interest rates with low principles relative to income is that a disciplined buyer could easily get ahead of their mortgage with prepayments, saving on those interest costs. Whereas a person with a much higher principle to income is going to have a much harder time prepaying their mortgage. That is, slapping a bonus against the house yielded far more benefit for buyers in the 80s than buyers in the 2020s. I would much prefer a lower home price with high interest for this reason.
I see your point, but buying a house in either generation with just cash or paying a lot down is just not a feasible arguing-point. Baby boomers had it worse with double the interest rate and higher fees, at least Gen Z retains most of the money put in
@@jared19882 price to income ratio shadows the interest rate comparison and any taxes, which is a fraction of the property value. That was the key message from the generational comparison of the entire video. The size of the loan relative to the disposable income after costs is critical, and it's clearly far worse now than before.
@@simonc6328 You seem to be missing the point. While it is more difficult to qualify, at least you are not losing over 25% BEFORE taking any market movement into consideration...
One big aspect that you didn't really cover is the fact that THE STICKER PRICE MATTERS. You are on the hook for X amount of dollars once you take that loan. It is a highly leveraged purchase! Depending on where you live mortgages may be recourse loans, meaning that if you purchase a home for $1 million at 5% down (generally the minimum in canada) thats still 50k (CAD) down. If it drops by 15% then you are 100k in debt so you can't sell and move without coughing up 100k or going BK. Just 15% completely robs you of your freedom to move for any reason and potentially costs you your entire life's savings. 15% is not a massive drop. Lower prices are WAY less risky and make market movements WAY less impactful and potentially life-ruining. For example if the price was 500k instead and it drops 15% your down payment was only 25k and a 15% drop only puts you 50k in the hole, which is actually manageable for most people with a few years of frugal living.
This is the primary reason why one should have at least 20% down. It's fairly common these days to put 3-5% down on a house and take out extra loans, use government assistance, and pay private mortgage insurance. However, in the event you have to sell your house at a lower market value than what you bought it, you are forced to do a short sale. 20% down can protect you and your credit from market fluctuations like this. It's sad, but if you can't afford 20%, then you probably shouldn't be buying a house.
@@KenW418 I agree, but 20% of the median price in many places is 150k. Easily 7-10 years of savings for most middle class people just for a downpayment which is insane.
@@natheayn6111 Oh yeah, I agree with that. I would argue more than 10 years in a lot of cases. It's almost impossible to save for a down payment at all if you're renting in the city that I live in. Incomes are just not high enough.
This is why it was nerve wrecking for me purchasing a home. All the houses i found cost 4x my salary. Eventually found a house out in thw country for a third of that price. I fear that a housing crash is going to happen soon so ibam fine with losing 10-20k but not 40-50k
Life is so full of crookedness its no wonder ive tried to end my life twice already. I don't think people in general have any idea what is coming. Economically we are light years past doomed. But to hear my family they believe all is sunshine and rainbows. I don't comprehend their logic.
This is happening virtually everywhere across the UN nation states by the way. Too often people think it’s poor local policy choice, but when a problem is endemic, you have to look for a common cause. I wonder if the UN has an agenda to reduce asset holdings of regular folk, and to reduce their fertility rates, and to reduce their consumption and carbon emissions…
wow so the US is cheap as compared to Australia. only 41 yrs to save for a deposit in Sydney on median income and the ratio is 13x the family income. that why were the 2nd most unaffordable in the world.. yay.
I'm sure you can get cheaper housing in the middle of nowhere Australia... but in USA it's the same.. the major population centers are extremely expensive. A middle class (not luxury) townhouse near me cost well into he 600K range.
Depends where in the US. Compare Sydney to San Francisco, New York City or Boston. The average house in my town sold for $1.3 million last year, it’s ridiculous
1:59 the fact that my parents bought a house for twice the square footage, half the price, and magnitude greater location just 20 years ago is so absurd.
I’m closing in on my retirement and I’d like to move from Minnesota to a warmer climate, but the prices on homes are stupidly ridiculous and Mortgage prices has been skyrocketing on a roll(currently over 7%) do I just invest my spare cash into stock and wait for a housing crash or should I go ahead to buy a home anyways?
I advise you to invest in stocks to balance out your real estate, Even the worst recessions offer wonderful buying opportunities in the markets if you're cautious. Volatility can also result in excellent short-term buy and sell opportunities. This is not financial advice, but buy now because cash is definitely not king right now!
A lot of folks downplay the role of advlsors until being burnt by their own emotions. I remember couple summers back, after my lengthy divorce, I needed a good boost to help my business stay afloat, hence I researched for licensed advisors and came across someone of utmost qualifications. She's helped grow my reserve notwithstanding inflation, from $275k to $850K.
I think this is something I should do, but I've been stalling for a long time now. I don't really know which firm to work with; I feel they are all the same but it seems you’ve got it all worked out with the firm you work with so i surely wouldn’t mind a recommendation.
Finding financial advisors like *Marisa Breton Dollard* who can assist you shape your portfolio would be a very creative option. There will be difficult times ahead, and prudent personal money management will be essential to navigating them.
Thank you for this tip , I must say Marisa, appears to be quite knowledgeable. After coming across her webpage, I thoroughly went through her resume, and I must say, it was quite impressive. I reached out to her, and I have booked a session with her.
I am from Sydney and living in Texas. Don’t forget property tax here in Austin is higher because we do not pay state income tax and not every state is charging such high rates of property tax. This is how they finance state spending. Makes a difference re income available to spend on a mortgage be Australia for example high af tax
Guys, I don’t even think it’s worth being here anymore. America is not worth being in anymore and even my family back in El Salvador have a better life than me.
I honestly believe the housing crisis is happening all over the world, specially in the western big cities. At the same time, in the self called "first world" countries, the population is rapidly decreasing so what would we expect in the future as millennial? Is going to be an increment in house offers that will make prices decline or will be a huge arrangement for big constructions companies to monopolize those lands purchase and make a huge construction peak of tall buildings? How did China manage the housing with the huge population they currently have? Europe is impossible too, as in USA, although I know of one case he is paying a mortgage in Ireland to buy his home with one professional salary. All the rest of people I know in Europe, they can not access a house nor even a rent for themselves. In Latin-America, on the opposite, you have many people in their 40s living on their own, renting or on what it was family home they got through inheritance. Is not common to share flat in Latin-American countries, as it is in USA and Europe....and in Australia too.
The supply issue can be fixed by getting rid of the people illegaly coming here. That would drop the prices as well. Inflation has fueled the home prices and grocery prices. Theres a fix but nobody wants to hear it.
Less people are living with a partner at later stages in life, so having less available homes is also because of people living alone as well as sprawl destroying opportunities for people to live more sustainably.
Interesting comparison. But it feels like you took an article that cherry-picked a particular set of years to force a point and used the same cherry-picked years. Anyhow, I do feel for those trying to buy a house, it's not easy times. Also, the relatively higher property taxes on homes in Austin are offset somewhat by living in a state with no income tax.
Weird how you disagreed with him, but then agreed at the same time. How is he forcing a point when he's correct? Barely anyone can afford a home, and many never will be able to. Telling the straight up truth is pretty far away from "cherry-picking a particular set of years". Enjoy your nice big house. 🙄
@@DeenanTheKemon1 exactly. For it to be a cherry-pick it would need to be explained that there is data clearly showing the contrary as the true case. It seems that perversely, in the comment above, cherry-pick means a researched and representative example.
I'm a big fan of Hamish and feel he did well on his analysis of the particular years, which he pointed out were from an article and not his choice. I was hoping to, in a positive way, contribute some interesting points to consider. Likely due to using the word "cherry-pick", even though used in referring to the article's choice and not Hamish's, I guess things were taken negatively by some. Instead, maybe I should have suggested that there are many better and worse years for both boomers and millennials over the past 40yrs, so I wonder why those specific years were chosen by the article. BTW, it's not hard to find articles saying the opposite (using different sets of years), and I wonder the same for those. It would be fun for Hamish to do another video :) I acknowledged that times really suck now, and that I feel for those looking for affordable living. I really hope we can all live affordably and that everyone can obtain their dreams. IMO, it doesn't matter whether some generation "won" or not, everyone has their circumstances, past and present.
I know it was tongue in cheek and there is a housing problem, but there are implied assumptions that may skew the results and need to be accounted for. Decades ago more people lived in a household. Also average U.S. home sizes have gotten significantly bigger over the decades...roughly 2.5x bigger since 1950, as well as much more expensive trims/materials compared to years gone by. Also, I have seen more people with an expectation of moving into the same price level of their family home they have moved from, with no work experience and little or no savings at all. Also, could you provide a historical level of down payments for home buyers over the decades? Im not surr if that would provide and impact or not. Good luck to all current homebuyers.
"Decades ago more people lived in a household." But more didn't work. Many households had a single earner in the 80's. Today dual income households are the vast majority and still have lower inflation-adjusted household incomes.
@@JamesDeanDiedIn1955 I'm in seq,I'm still wearing thongs and shorts in the middle of winter during the day...I've worked in Darwin during winter,and it's still hot,with less humidity,I just hate humidity....if is hot and dry,I don't mind it.....
Using "median" income is grossly misleading. The rate of economic disparity between the rich and the average working American is far greater now than in the 80s; the figure you use, $92,750, is distorted by including those billionaires. If you exclude the wealthiest 10%, the median US income (for 2022) is about $41,000. That's a more reality-based figure. I don't have the figure for 1985, but I know it was not nearly as skewed by the rich.
good analysis. supply is going to increase, though, for a variety of reasons. Temporary rentals are about to get dumped, and if rates go down significantly, even more will sell their low rate homes bought a few years ago.
Where ever you got your median income your math is way off brother its more like 75k you also forgot to add in utilities . Sewer , water, electric, gas and internet which is now consider a common world wide utility service
6:41 This is particularly important, because of the rate that the housing market is actively rising now, it will be out of reach at current pace after those 9 years, as it will have risen too much in price to be achievable.
When interest rate go down there is a possibility of increase in housing price. There could be a possibility of decrease due to higher supply due to people willing to sell since they are no longer in a golden handcuff of super low interest... So case for both increase or decrease. No idea which market forces will win out. I loan amount is low as hell so don't matter one way or the other.
The other thing to consider is going to be the ability to actually save up the money. The current housing market, being what it is, also drives up rental costs, which means that people are spending mortgage payment amounts on homes they can’t own, meaning they can’t afford to save up for a home loan, and if they do, it takes one medical, employment, or community based crisis to wipe out every cent of savings. Years of saving up can get wiped out in one go, and forces them to start over.
Great analysis. You did a great job analyzing various factors from income, interest rates, and supply/demand. Cost of ownership and Income are closely related so it also would have been valid to combine them and call it "Affordability" or something along those lines, which to your point Millennials have it worse despite the higher interest rates Baby Boomers experienced in the 1980s
You calculated the "cost" without including relative income? Cost is meaningless unless affordability is taken into account. Good thing you could "sense" us going down to the comments to tell you what a space filler that useless calculation was.
I disagree with the conclusion that the Income Ratio is the problem here.I think Housing Supply is. Income Ratio seems to be just a symptom of the Housing Supply. Looking at the gap between households formation and houses built is shocking and it shows that doesn't matter how much people earn. If you earn less than someone else, they will get the new house and you will stay at mom's basement with your partner and baby. It is not like a car/TV that you can just choose a cheaper smaller one since the cat/TV price is based on manufacturing cost. This is a gigantic problem of supply.
Except air bnb, 2nd + homes and properties that sit empty be cause someone needs to park their money. We actually have way more vacant home than the shortage.
I think housing demand is also a huge problem, depending on where you live. I live in Melbourne, Australia, and demand due to mass migration is so hopelessly high that there is no chance for supply to keep up.
I really appreciate your information Hamish. It's fair and and helps me think about my investments in a broader way. For that, I thank you. Keep up the great work.
Supplies is always gonna be low, politicians dont wanna add more homes to their voting constituence area plus people dont want development near them drive there house price down
20% downpayment is a stupid non-rule that is almost always a terrible idea. It almost ruined your video to hear you say that stupid catchphrase. You don't "probably" need 20%, virtually no-one needs that. Put down 3.5% like a regular person, heck invest the difference in a mutual fund and it'll far beat the cost of PMI. The myth of "20% downpayments" is probably half responsible for why so many millenials didn't buy a house between 2015-2020 in the first place. Heck, sell a quarter or half point on your mortgage rate and get back a few thousand $ toward closing costs. In a few years when ratea are loqer you can refi and between paying off principal + appreciation you'll probably get rid of the PMI too!
All that you, and most young people, are demonstrating is your ignorance of what money is, inflation, feminism, and the effect of progressive politics. Your answer? Blame some group of people. Your motivation? Envy. I am not a baby boomer.
And what brought on larger homes? Feminism. Dual incomes. Deferred purchasing. Later child birth. Progressive politics has led to higher property taxes. And yet people still complain. You can’t have everything. @@Siwerdensichhinsetzen
If you invest early in life, you could easily buy one home maybe two, even in the most expensive cities in America. Pay yourself first. Saving money is a waste of time/energy. Without leaverage, you will get nowhere. Being financially literate pays for itself a thousand times over. A 800 credit score has more purchasing power than 100k cash .
Not in CA, the millennials are millionaires from silicon valley engineering boom! Cash purchases. Bust your butt and you earn a house. Tired of sluggish people complaining. You control your dreams!
Anyone wanna start a commune yet? Idk about y'all, but uh, if it takes literal years of time to "buy" a house, why are we trying? I'm pretty sure you can chop down trees and build your own house in less than one single year. How many thousands of hours will we sacrifice for these subpar cheap "houses" we've created?
No financial institution should be allowed to own 40% or more of the single family homes. This recession is paving a way for a monopoly on homes to further rid of the middle class. It would be wise for most Americans to not sell their homes if they're able to.I want to buy houses cheap in 2024 and maybe invest in stocks. When's the best time to buy stocks? Some say they make a lot, others warn the market is risky. Advice?
From my own experience, getting expert advice is crucial to avoiding mistakes and losses in the stock market. The crisis could get worse as low wages, high costs, and rising rents make it hard to save. Many middle-class Americans risk an uncertain retirement without owning a home.
Accurate asset allocation is crucial. Some use hedging or defensive assets in their portfolio for market downturns. Seeking financial advice is vital. This approach has kept me financially secure for over five years, with a return on investment of nearly $1 million.
Thanks for sharing. I searched for her full name, found her website immediately, reviewed her credentials, and did my due diligence before reaching out to her.
Thanks Morning Brew for my daily news briefing - sign up for free here
morningbrewdaily.com/hamish
blackrock is buying up all the single family homes, which should be illegal.
One key thing you missed: many households in the 80's were single income while most households today are dual income. So the situation is more grossly skewed than even the data shows. Then those same old people ask why young people today aren't having kids when our effective incomes with two people working full time are less than one person working + one staying at home back in the day.
Glad someone mentioned this. Very much forgotten that a measure commonly used to extinguish arguments around housing cost is household income, not a more empirical median income.
The feminists fought long and hard to get women into the mainstream workplace.
Once the dual income household was well established it just pushed housing prices higher and higher. Everyone had double the disposable income to spend. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
Not to mention that the high end of the income scale is much higher now than in 1985. The median household income is much lower than $94,000. It is closer to $74,000.
This will change the results drastically. The rich have much higher incomes compared to the middle class than in 1985 and it pushes up the average. Regular people are much more reflected by the median.
Not to mention also that the house prices as a multiple of income was lower, so people had the avenue of saving a bigger down payment quicker than home prices were rising.
Bingo! Lots to debate but can’t dispute that fact. Great catch.
We’ll all be millionaires and it will mean nothing
“YOU GET NOTHING, YOU LOSE!”
sorry this put Willy wonka on the mind.
back in 1978 there was a SNL skit that predicted this. Its titled "a 1978 satire about inflation that came true"
Congratulations you learned how inflation works over the long term!
Better make it 10 million lil ho
* Laughs in Melbourne house prices *
$435,000 would buy you a shack 4 hours away from the CBD
Yeah Aus is cooked, its USD to AUD also
Well, AUD is just monopoly money anyway. 😄
Yeah, because that average includes all the worthless podunk hillybilly crackshacks in the middle of fucking nowhere. The average home price in California is like $975,000
You need to take into account the inflated cost of literally everything, not just costs related to home ownership.
The answers in Vienna & Singapore. STATE builds housing as a right supported by various mechanisms. Result: 90% home ownership in Singapore & 80% of Vienna live in State Housing.
The median family income in the US is NOT 92,750. it's $74,580 according to the US Census. That makes every calculation afterwards wrong.
Homes should be shelter to live in, not investment vehicles. It's unfixable as long as the people who own property both have far larger political influence and use all that power to entrench a system that doesn't allow new building to keep pace with demand to continuously balloon their investment/home's value.
the Glass-Steagall Act was allowed to sunset under Clinton.
yes, while one cannot fully prohibit investment purchases, the regulations are killing the supply chain which is the main problem. Plus, there is this vicious cycle of people not wanting to live in small towns, and therefore those small town degenerate even though their home prices are relatively cheap. People should seriously consider other places than big cities.
@goobda_ I wish small town living was cheap the people who live in our communities don't make enough to afford 'cheap' properties
@@hexapon133 yes, this is the problem. Small towns seem cheap but only for people who already live in big cities
No financial institution should be allowed to own 40% or more of the single family homes. This recession is paving a way for a monopoly on homes to further rid of the middle class. It would be wise for most Americans to not sell their homes if they're able to.I want to buy houses cheap in 2024 and maybe invest in stocks. When's the best time to buy stocks? Some say they make a lot, others warn the market is risky. Advice?
From my own experience, getting expert advice is crucial to avoiding mistakes and losses in the stock market. The crisis could get worse as low wages, high costs, and rising rents make it hard to save. Many middle-class Americans risk an uncertain retirement without owning a home.
Accurate asset allocation is crucial. Some use hedging or defensive assets in their portfolio for market downturns. Seeking financial advice is vital. This approach has kept me financially secure for over five years, with a return on investment of nearly $1 million.
Paying 1 quarter of 400k just to get into the house is ridiculous.
Considering that:
A) In the western world, the birth rate of the native population has fallen below the replacement rate.
B) The population growth in the west is largely due to immigration and only to a lesser extent, aging of the population.
C) Based on Danish statistics, the net contribution of the majority of 3rd world immigrants on the GDP of their host country is a negative one (I don't expect it to be much different elsewhere).
D) Immigrants require housing as well, and therefore essentially compete for the same space.
E) The populations of the host nations were largely ignored during this age of mass immigration, they never asked for it.
The contours of a solution therefore seem clear to me, and from what I've seen from the UK recently, to many there as well.
However, CZcams community guidelines usually prevent much of a discussion beyond this point.
The contribution to GDP is not negative. The contribution to government finances via taxation is net negative.
@@natheayn6111 You're probably right considering how GDP is calculated. Let me put it differently:
According to the 2021 report: 3rd world migrants collectively make a net-negative lifetime financial contribution.
@@natheayn6111I wanted to say that you're probably right considering how GDP is calculated, and because of that I also wanted to update this specific point.
However, saying something along the lines that people from a specific group on average, make a net-negative financial contribution over their lifetime, triggered the algorithm. As usual, it made my post disappear. It didn't contain rude language or anything, just facts.
If only the algorithm was so active in fighting all the spam in the comment section...
Amazing that we've engineered the discourse about underlying factors so unpalatable that we've backed solutions into a quiet corner.
@@EatRawGarlic Understandable. Unfortunately free speech does not exist on the internet. CBC blocks comments on housing and on contentious videos of the Olympics, but wide open on Phil Wiz. Reddit threads always locked and much more... 🤔
Thank you for codifying what so many people know in an intuitive sense but can’t really articulate! You’re the man Hamish!!!
thank you!
overlooked points:
1) at the same time that it costs more up front relative to incomes in order purchase a home, it is more difficult to save up even the same amount relative to income. Personal savings rates are much lower today than they were in 1985. Notable reasons that it’s harder today to save up the same fraction of a year’s income are the higher rents relative to incomes and the large student loan debt burden that essentially didn’t exist in 1985.
2) were HOA fees mentioned in the video? Most homes today have an HOA fee tacked onto the costs of home ownership hat we’re mentioned
3) buying when a larger portion of the cost of ownership is from interest is a massive advantage that buyers in the 80s benefitted from
-unlocks the option of huge savings by paying it off early
-gives accelerated home price appreciation, since from a starting point of high interest rates, interest rates are more likely to trend down over time than up. As did in fact occur, and which enhanced the appreciation of the asset
As long it's profitable to own land as a store of value, wages will tend toward subsistence.
You forgot a massive factor in the 80s they didn't have all the mass of taxes that we do now like luxury tax 7.35% gas tax , much higher property taxes , rain water tax in some states , many other . With a decaying $ with wages that didnt keep up 😂😂😂😂
interests rates were skyhigh
@IzzetSuleimani they were but you also got to keep more of your pay. Never underestimate how much money the governments helps itself to off the top. I can say this as I left a state that had income tax. If I was still there at my old salary I'd be broke after. But in current state I can actually make it.
A key factor of high interest rates with low principles relative to income is that a disciplined buyer could easily get ahead of their mortgage with prepayments, saving on those interest costs. Whereas a person with a much higher principle to income is going to have a much harder time prepaying their mortgage. That is, slapping a bonus against the house yielded far more benefit for buyers in the 80s than buyers in the 2020s. I would much prefer a lower home price with high interest for this reason.
I see your point, but buying a house in either generation with just cash or paying a lot down is just not a feasible arguing-point. Baby boomers had it worse with double the interest rate and higher fees, at least Gen Z retains most of the money put in
@@jared19882 price to income ratio shadows the interest rate comparison and any taxes, which is a fraction of the property value. That was the key message from the generational comparison of the entire video. The size of the loan relative to the disposable income after costs is critical, and it's clearly far worse now than before.
@@simonc6328 You seem to be missing the point. While it is more difficult to qualify, at least you are not losing over 25% BEFORE taking any market movement into consideration...
One big aspect that you didn't really cover is the fact that THE STICKER PRICE MATTERS.
You are on the hook for X amount of dollars once you take that loan. It is a highly leveraged purchase!
Depending on where you live mortgages may be recourse loans, meaning that if you purchase a home for $1 million at 5% down (generally the minimum in canada) thats still 50k (CAD) down. If it drops by 15% then you are 100k in debt so you can't sell and move without coughing up 100k or going BK. Just 15% completely robs you of your freedom to move for any reason and potentially costs you your entire life's savings. 15% is not a massive drop.
Lower prices are WAY less risky and make market movements WAY less impactful and potentially life-ruining.
For example if the price was 500k instead and it drops 15% your down payment was only 25k and a 15% drop only puts you 50k in the hole, which is actually manageable for most people with a few years of frugal living.
This is the primary reason why one should have at least 20% down. It's fairly common these days to put 3-5% down on a house and take out extra loans, use government assistance, and pay private mortgage insurance. However, in the event you have to sell your house at a lower market value than what you bought it, you are forced to do a short sale. 20% down can protect you and your credit from market fluctuations like this. It's sad, but if you can't afford 20%, then you probably shouldn't be buying a house.
@@KenW418 I agree, but 20% of the median price in many places is 150k. Easily 7-10 years of savings for most middle class people just for a downpayment which is insane.
@@natheayn6111 Oh yeah, I agree with that. I would argue more than 10 years in a lot of cases. It's almost impossible to save for a down payment at all if you're renting in the city that I live in. Incomes are just not high enough.
This is why it was nerve wrecking for me purchasing a home. All the houses i found cost 4x my salary. Eventually found a house out in thw country for a third of that price. I fear that a housing crash is going to happen soon so ibam fine with losing 10-20k but not 40-50k
Life is so full of crookedness its no wonder ive tried to end my life twice already. I don't think people in general have any idea what is coming. Economically we are light years past doomed. But to hear my family they believe all is sunshine and rainbows. I don't comprehend their logic.
This is happening virtually everywhere across the UN nation states by the way. Too often people think it’s poor local policy choice, but when a problem is endemic, you have to look for a common cause. I wonder if the UN has an agenda to reduce asset holdings of regular folk, and to reduce their fertility rates, and to reduce their consumption and carbon emissions…
wow so the US is cheap as compared to Australia. only 41 yrs to save for a deposit in Sydney on median income and the ratio is 13x the family income. that why were the 2nd most unaffordable in the world.. yay.
Everywhere is cheap compared to Sydney.
I can’t understand why people would actually choose to live there.
Canada and Australia both have it the absolute worst.
I'm sure you can get cheaper housing in the middle of nowhere Australia... but in USA it's the same.. the major population centers are extremely expensive. A middle class (not luxury) townhouse near me cost well into he 600K range.
Depends where in the US. Compare Sydney to San Francisco, New York City or Boston. The average house in my town sold for $1.3 million last year, it’s ridiculous
I’m 21 have already realized I will live worse then my grandparents and work more it’s kinda depressing
1:59 the fact that my parents bought a house for twice the square footage, half the price, and magnitude greater location just 20 years ago is so absurd.
I’m closing in on my retirement and I’d like to move from Minnesota to a warmer climate, but the prices on homes are stupidly ridiculous and Mortgage prices has been skyrocketing on a roll(currently over 7%) do I just invest my spare cash into stock and wait for a housing crash or should I go ahead to buy a home anyways?
I advise you to invest in stocks to balance out your real estate, Even the worst recessions offer wonderful buying opportunities in the markets if you're cautious. Volatility can also result in excellent short-term buy and sell opportunities. This is not financial advice, but buy now because cash is definitely not king right now!
A lot of folks downplay the role of advlsors until being burnt by their own emotions. I remember couple summers back, after my lengthy divorce, I needed a good boost to help my business stay afloat, hence I researched for licensed advisors and came across someone of utmost qualifications. She's helped grow my reserve notwithstanding inflation, from $275k to $850K.
I think this is something I should do, but I've been stalling for a long time now. I don't really know which firm to work with; I feel they are all the same but it seems you’ve got it all worked out with the firm you work with so i surely wouldn’t mind a recommendation.
Finding financial advisors like *Marisa Breton Dollard* who can assist you shape your portfolio would be a very creative option. There will be difficult times ahead, and prudent personal money management will be essential to navigating them.
Thank you for this tip , I must say Marisa, appears to be quite knowledgeable. After coming across her webpage, I thoroughly went through her resume, and I must say, it was quite impressive. I reached out to her, and I have booked a session with her.
I am from Sydney and living in Texas. Don’t forget property tax here in Austin is higher because we do not pay state income tax and not every state is charging such high rates of property tax. This is how they finance state spending. Makes a difference re income available to spend on a mortgage be Australia for example high af tax
How is quality of life in Aus vs US in general? I've heard the Canadians have it worse
American Dream: Accumulate big toys.
Australian Dream: Paid off House.
The average income to afford an average house has doubled in 3 years. Utter madness out there.
I wish property taxes were that low where I live. A $435,000 house in my home town would pay $13,702.5 a year in taxes alone ($1,141.87 a month)
Guys, I don’t even think it’s worth being here anymore. America is not worth being in anymore and even my family back in El Salvador have a better life than me.
same mess here in Canada....even worse....crazy housing prices for over 15, 20 years now
FED: ok let’s start cooling these interest rates…
Kamala: FREE $25K FOR HOME BUYERS
FED: 😮
AND price controls. We are doomed
Because what we are doing now is working so well?
@@Noneya777 Hungary shows that if you give people mojey for their home the home price average increases by the average amount given
I honestly believe the housing crisis is happening all over the world, specially in the western big cities. At the same time, in the self called "first world" countries, the population is rapidly decreasing so what would we expect in the future as millennial? Is going to be an increment in house offers that will make prices decline or will be a huge arrangement for big constructions companies to monopolize those lands purchase and make a huge construction peak of tall buildings? How did China manage the housing with the huge population they currently have? Europe is impossible too, as in USA, although I know of one case he is paying a mortgage in Ireland to buy his home with one professional salary. All the rest of people I know in Europe, they can not access a house nor even a rent for themselves. In Latin-America, on the opposite, you have many people in their 40s living on their own, renting or on what it was family home they got through inheritance. Is not common to share flat in Latin-American countries, as it is in USA and Europe....and in Australia too.
The supply issue can be fixed by getting rid of the people illegaly coming here. That would drop the prices as well. Inflation has fueled the home prices and grocery prices. Theres a fix but nobody wants to hear it.
Less people are living with a partner at later stages in life, so having less available homes is also because of people living alone as well as sprawl destroying opportunities for people to live more sustainably.
Interesting comparison. But it feels like you took an article that cherry-picked a particular set of years to force a point and used the same cherry-picked years. Anyhow, I do feel for those trying to buy a house, it's not easy times. Also, the relatively higher property taxes on homes in Austin are offset somewhat by living in a state with no income tax.
It feels like you haven't even looked at any data and simply cherry picked your own sentiments as a comparison.
Weird how you disagreed with him, but then agreed at the same time.
How is he forcing a point when he's correct?
Barely anyone can afford a home, and many never will be able to. Telling the straight up truth is pretty far away from "cherry-picking a particular set of years".
Enjoy your nice big house. 🙄
@@DeenanTheKemon1 exactly. For it to be a cherry-pick it would need to be explained that there is data clearly showing the contrary as the true case.
It seems that perversely, in the comment above, cherry-pick means a researched and representative example.
I'm a big fan of Hamish and feel he did well on his analysis of the particular years, which he pointed out were from an article and not his choice. I was hoping to, in a positive way, contribute some interesting points to consider.
Likely due to using the word "cherry-pick", even though used in referring to the article's choice and not Hamish's, I guess things were taken negatively by some.
Instead, maybe I should have suggested that there are many better and worse years for both boomers and millennials over the past 40yrs, so I wonder why those specific years were chosen by the article. BTW, it's not hard to find articles saying the opposite (using different sets of years), and I wonder the same for those. It would be fun for Hamish to do another video :)
I acknowledged that times really suck now, and that I feel for those looking for affordable living. I really hope we can all live affordably and that everyone can obtain their dreams. IMO, it doesn't matter whether some generation "won" or not, everyone has their circumstances, past and present.
That was a very good follow up
I know it was tongue in cheek and there is a housing problem, but there are implied assumptions that may skew the results and need to be accounted for.
Decades ago more people lived in a household. Also average U.S. home sizes have gotten significantly bigger over the decades...roughly 2.5x bigger since 1950, as well as much more expensive trims/materials compared to years gone by.
Also, I have seen more people with an expectation of moving into the same price level of their family home they have moved from, with no work experience and little or no savings at all.
Also, could you provide a historical level of down payments for home buyers over the decades? Im not surr if that would provide and impact or not.
Good luck to all current homebuyers.
"Decades ago more people lived in a household."
But more didn't work. Many households had a single earner in the 80's. Today dual income households are the vast majority and still have lower inflation-adjusted household incomes.
Nah
Can you please do more australian content ? Thanks
sure! what would you like to see?
@@HamishHodder anything really I love all content cheers mate
Just watched The Big Short.....
Bad ass flick
@@jasona5806 Watched Margin Call (2011) after. Not as good by far but the acting was solid.
in Northern Australia, 500k buys a 4 bedroom house on 600sqm block 20min from the CBD
People on 100k wage, still complain its too expensive
Shit weather
@@thylacine1004 stabbings come way before weather
@@JamesDeanDiedIn1955 Yep,crazy weather makes crazy people...going troppo...
@@thylacine1004 great winter, troppo summer.
At least don't have to deal with icy winter.
@@JamesDeanDiedIn1955 I'm in seq,I'm still wearing thongs and shorts in the middle of winter during the day...I've worked in Darwin during winter,and it's still hot,with less humidity,I just hate humidity....if is hot and dry,I don't mind it.....
Using "median" income is grossly misleading. The rate of economic disparity between the rich and the average working American is far greater now than in the 80s; the figure you use, $92,750, is distorted by including those billionaires. If you exclude the wealthiest 10%, the median US income (for 2022) is about $41,000. That's a more reality-based figure. I don't have the figure for 1985, but I know it was not nearly as skewed by the rich.
good analysis. supply is going to increase, though, for a variety of reasons. Temporary rentals are about to get dumped, and if rates go down significantly, even more will sell their low rate homes bought a few years ago.
Where ever you got your median income your math is way off brother its more like 75k you also forgot to add in utilities
. Sewer , water, electric, gas and internet which is now consider a common world wide utility service
Outstanding analysis... Thanks
6:41
This is particularly important, because of the rate that the housing market is actively rising now, it will be out of reach at current pace after those 9 years, as it will have risen too much in price to be achievable.
Middletown ct property tax went up 95% 3 years ago .2 years ago then was 25% . Then 15% this year so ......
When interest rate go down there is a possibility of increase in housing price. There could be a possibility of decrease due to higher supply due to people willing to sell since they are no longer in a golden handcuff of super low interest... So case for both increase or decrease. No idea which market forces will win out. I loan amount is low as hell so don't matter one way or the other.
The other thing to consider is going to be the ability to actually save up the money. The current housing market, being what it is, also drives up rental costs, which means that people are spending mortgage payment amounts on homes they can’t own, meaning they can’t afford to save up for a home loan, and if they do, it takes one medical, employment, or community based crisis to wipe out every cent of savings. Years of saving up can get wiped out in one go, and forces them to start over.
Loving my 2.5% 30 yr fixed.
Making 73$ a hour an still suffering
Great analysis. You did a great job analyzing various factors from income, interest rates, and supply/demand. Cost of ownership and Income are closely related so it also would have been valid to combine them and call it "Affordability" or something along those lines, which to your point Millennials have it worse despite the higher interest rates Baby Boomers experienced in the 1980s
Love and appreciate your content Hamish. Keep up the good work 👊🏻
The problem is too many people here. Most aint even leagal.
The immigrants drive down labor costs and inflate housing costs. What a country.
You calculated the "cost" without including relative income? Cost is meaningless unless affordability is taken into account. Good thing you could "sense" us going down to the comments to tell you what a space filler that useless calculation was.
Come all to Italy, we will gladly open our doors to you!😂
The thumbnail is your best one yet. 😂
I disagree with the conclusion that the Income Ratio is the problem here.I think Housing Supply is. Income Ratio seems to be just a symptom of the Housing Supply. Looking at the gap between households formation and houses built is shocking and it shows that doesn't matter how much people earn. If you earn less than someone else, they will get the new house and you will stay at mom's basement with your partner and baby. It is not like a car/TV that you can just choose a cheaper smaller one since the cat/TV price is based on manufacturing cost. This is a gigantic problem of supply.
Except air bnb, 2nd + homes and properties that sit empty be cause someone needs to park their money. We actually have way more vacant home than the shortage.
I think housing demand is also a huge problem, depending on where you live. I live in Melbourne, Australia, and demand due to mass migration is so hopelessly high that there is no chance for supply to keep up.
I really appreciate your information Hamish. It's fair and and helps me think about my investments in a broader way. For that, I thank you. Keep up the great work.
And credit score did not exist until 1989
Aussie talking about destroyed 'Muricunt dream while Aussie dreams will soon become a nightmare with RBA's likelihood to raise interest rate, ha!
oh I am far too familiar with our own housing affordability problems 😅
Our housing prices here in Australia are among the highest in the world, we are uncomfortably familiar with it mate. I'm sure Hamish is too.
RBA has too hike because of government decisions....
How to fix the housing market?
Stop spending money on wars and other useless crap!
You think this is bad look at canada housing situation
bingo...same mess here in Canada....even worse....crazy housing prices for over 15, 20 years now
Great video Hamish !
Guy left out inflation...bruh.
I think my parents bought their first home in 85
blame blackrock,
Austin Texas isn't good example. Although there are engineers there too.
Supplies is always gonna be low, politicians dont wanna add more homes to their voting constituence area plus people dont want development near them drive there house price down
Nothing quite like picking on the boomers. It’s getting old fast..
The world has changed in a big way since boomers were building/buying houses.
Everyone wants to be a millionaire
Those 12% are investor realtors
20% downpayment is a stupid non-rule that is almost always a terrible idea. It almost ruined your video to hear you say that stupid catchphrase. You don't "probably" need 20%, virtually no-one needs that. Put down 3.5% like a regular person, heck invest the difference in a mutual fund and it'll far beat the cost of PMI.
The myth of "20% downpayments" is probably half responsible for why so many millenials didn't buy a house between 2015-2020 in the first place.
Heck, sell a quarter or half point on your mortgage rate and get back a few thousand $ toward closing costs. In a few years when ratea are loqer you can refi and between paying off principal + appreciation you'll probably get rid of the PMI too!
LFG!!! Crash it all!!
2024 is the new 1929.
OK in 1980's the median home was 1500 sq ft. 2020's the median home is 2400 sq ft.
lets get to 4000 sq by 2060
Fha loans ✨
Johnson Steven Garcia Timothy White Joseph
All that you, and most young people, are demonstrating is your ignorance of what money is, inflation, feminism, and the effect of progressive politics. Your answer? Blame some group of people. Your motivation? Envy. I am not a baby boomer.
And what brought on larger homes? Feminism. Dual incomes. Deferred purchasing. Later child birth. Progressive politics has led to higher property taxes. And yet people still complain. You can’t have everything. @@Siwerdensichhinsetzen
If you invest early in life, you could easily buy one home maybe two, even in the most expensive cities in America. Pay yourself first. Saving money is a waste of time/energy. Without leaverage, you will get nowhere. Being financially literate pays for itself a thousand times over. A 800 credit score has more purchasing power than 100k cash .
I guess it’s a good thing Gen X doesn’t own homes. SMH
Not in CA, the millennials are millionaires from silicon valley engineering boom! Cash purchases. Bust your butt and you earn a house. Tired of sluggish people complaining. You control your dreams!
ok
Anyone wanna start a commune yet? Idk about y'all, but uh, if it takes literal years of time to "buy" a house, why are we trying? I'm pretty sure you can chop down trees and build your own house in less than one single year. How many thousands of hours will we sacrifice for these subpar cheap "houses" we've created?
No financial institution should be allowed to own 40% or more of the single family homes. This recession is paving a way for a monopoly on homes to further rid of the middle class. It would be wise for most Americans to not sell their homes if they're able to.I want to buy houses cheap in 2024 and maybe invest in stocks. When's the best time to buy stocks? Some say they make a lot, others warn the market is risky. Advice?
From my own experience, getting expert advice is crucial to avoiding mistakes and losses in the stock market. The crisis could get worse as low wages, high costs, and rising rents make it hard to save. Many middle-class Americans risk an uncertain retirement without owning a home.
Accurate asset allocation is crucial. Some use hedging or defensive assets in their portfolio for market downturns. Seeking financial advice is vital. This approach has kept me financially secure for over five years, with a return on investment of nearly $1 million.
I will be happy getting assistance and glad to get the help of one, but just how can one spot a reputable one?
Her name is 'Jessica Lee Horst” Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
Thanks for sharing. I searched for her full name, found her website immediately, reviewed her credentials, and did my due diligence before reaching out to her.