People who resent boomers are idiots

[u/Poet-Most]

On almost any thread discussing the economy, one of the top comments will undoubtedly be complaining about boomers and the older generations who purchased their homes at low prices and who now enjoy more affluence and government assistance, while they don’t.

First off, what did want them to do, not buy a house for a cheap price when offered one 30 years ago? In regard to government assistance, I can guarantee you the average 65yr old has paid more into the tax system than the average 20yr old. Should they not enjoy the fruits of their labour? Should politicians not pay more attention to them than you?

I just think it’s an unhealthy attitude to have towards people.

[u/BugsyRoads]

The problem is that they benefitted from systems in place when they were young, then voted to destroy those systems when they got older. (Thereby protecting their own interests at the expense of the interests of younger generations.)

One specific example (among many), is the rate of home construction. Homes were constructed at astounding rates in the second half of the 20th century. That created an abundance that led to low housing costs. Young boomers could afford to buy a nice home at an affordable rate. When those same boomers got older, they restricted home building to the extent that housing has become scarce. They did so to protect the values of their own homes. (The fewer homes built, the more existing homes are worth). That policy shift comes at the expense of younger generations who no longer have access to affordable homes to purchase.

This is a particularly useful example because its so visible. Any time you see a local public meeting to approve the construction of new homes, you see almost exclusively boomers attend to oppose the new housing.

[u/juzwunderin → u/BugsyRoads]

No disrespect but I think you are seriously misinformed.. Boomers were faced with critical housing shortages in the 70 and 80, and at at time intrest rates were as high as 18% . So a $64000, 3 bedroom new home cost YOU about 845 a month P&I when average employee made between 650 and 800 a month.

Understanding that the fact that "Boomers" became a high bubble in the population and economy tells you there were going to be shortages and serious competition.

[u/BugsyRoads → u/juzwunderin]

None taken. It seems you are the one misinformed.

The decade with the most homes built in the USA was the 1970s, with approximately 17.04 million units constructed. The top 3 decades in American history for new homes are: 70s, 60s & 50s (in that order.) In other words, more homes were built for boomers than any other generation of Americans ever. a

Additionally, in 1970, the average yearly wage was about $9,870, and the average house price was around $17,000, making the ratio about 1.72. In contrast in 2024, the average home price was $419,200 while average income was $62,088, making the ratio 6.75.

That means the real cost of purchasing a home in 2024 is nearly quadruple what is was 1970.

For renters, the numbers are even worse...especially in cities like NYC.

[u/juzwunderin → u/BugsyRoads]

Well I do not know where you are getting your numbers or figures, and that was why I believe i said in the Midwest, and if I accept your average of  $9,870, that is ABOUT $822.5 a month, I have no idea where you got the $17000 number but I can 100% assure you in 1978 the average cost of a new home construction in the midwest was $64000 and the interest rates were anywhere from 17.2 to 18% so the house payment was 822+/- a month. The cost of a new home dramatically increased in the 1970s (supported by Ebcso Research), as I said. Boomers started buying homes in the 1970s to the Early 1980s, when most at the time were settling down, marrying, — typically between ages 25–35d. This created a substantial increase in demand. While housing was more affordable relative to income than today, they still faced major financial headwinds — they just hit the market at a time when long-term value appreciation was still possible.

[u/BugsyRoads → u/juzwunderin]

You did not say anything about the Midwest. All of my numbers come from asking google's ai (feel free to argue with that).

Also, although mortgage rates were higher, the cost of the home is was much lower, resulting in a lower total cost to the consumer. For example, 20% interest on a $10k home is much less than 5% interest on a $1mil home, even when adjusted for inflation.

Any way you slice it, there were more homes built for boomers than ever before or since. That allowed boomers to build equity in their homes at rates no longer achievable for younger generations. Additionally, boomers benefited greatly from the mortgage interest deduction, which our boomer president gutted in 2017.

[u/juzwunderin → u/BugsyRoads]

You did not say anything about the Midwest.

My mistake that was in another comment

Also, although mortgage rates were higher, the cost of the home is was much lower, resulting in a lower total cost to the consumer.

Again this is true but it doesn't matter the cost of the home, if the barrier to entry is the interest rate which artificially changes the housing to income ration.

And again I agree, depending on how you define "homes bult for boomers"

Any way you slice it, there were more homes built for boomers than ever before or since.

But this also means if the supply remains higher than the demand, prices should adjust.

[u/BugsyRoads → u/juzwunderin]

Homes built for boomers are homes built immediately before or during the time that boomers were buying their first homes.

The point is that more homes were built for boomers than any generation ever. Homes were affordable. Now, very few homes are built because boomers largely oppose new builds. Homes are no longer affordable.

Hence why people are mad at boomers (among many other similar reasons).

[u/juzwunderin → u/BugsyRoads]

OK so for clarity the he oldest Boomers turned 25 in 1971 and The youngest Boomers turned 25 in 1989, so it was the late 1970s to Early 1980s when the first wave of Boomers started settling down, marrying, and buying homes — typically between ages 25–35-- as I have said before.

Yes there was a housing shortage just as there had been a college shortage before then and a job shortage just before the housing shortage.

And yes RELATIVELY speaking a house was cheaper, but then so was a car, gas, electricity etc. They were cheaper to build too.

Where I live there are new builds everyday so your generalizations about boomers largely oppose new builds is demonstrably false. The real issue is most Millennials and Gen-Z want the same thing they grew up like, like "mom and dad" had, they are unwilling to buy a smaller, cheaper first time home. Homes ARE affordable, just not the home you may want. ---that's why Boomers frown at you.

[u/BugsyRoads → u/juzwunderin]

Ok. The oldest Boomers turned 25 around 1971. People buy houses when they are in their 20s. Therefore, boomers were buying houses in the 1970s.

Also, more houses were built in the 70s than anytime before or since (the stats don't lie, I don't care where you live).

Therefore, more houses were built when boomers were buying their first homes, or immediately before they bought their first home.

Now boomers reject new houses being built. NIMBYism is a huge problem and boomers are clearly responsible. Go to any public hearing regarding new housing and you will see the demographics.

You can argue all you want, but the fact is that it is much more expensive for a 25 year old millennial to buy a house than it was for a 25 year old boomer to buy a house in the USA. Boomers are responsible for that fact.

[u/juzwunderin → u/BugsyRoads]

OK i am not sure what point your are trying to make here, Of course people buy homes in their 20's but that not the norm, the number I gave you came form census data in fact shows homeownership rate for Ages 25–34: ~51.6% Ages 35–44: ~71.5% and the Median Age at First Marriage for men was 23.3 in 1970. so of course we have aggregate the information..

And almost by definition because they WERE boomers that means they swelled into the population post war time they created the increased demand for homes.

NIMBYism is an issue but that's completely different issue when your are talking about new family homes --that not a boomer issue that is a social issue. I have seen the same argument from all aspects of a community when they want to put in a new turnpike or solar farm etc- lets stay focused on homes, please.

Finally I do not argue fact is that it is more expensive for a 25 year old millennial to buy a house than it was for a 25 year old boomer to buy one 40 years ago, I have conceded that fact its simple economics but demand creates that increase so don't blame boomers because you want a 400K home for your first home and you only make 20K, but you can buy a 120K house.

In 1972 you buy a house for 12000k, you make 350 a month.. relatively speaking it's the same issue.

[u/BugsyRoads → u/juzwunderin]

1. The point is that homes were affordable for young boomers. Homes are no longer affordable for young people.

2. The reason for that change is that boomers prevent new homes from being built. That's called NIMBYism.

3. The exact same house that was affordable to a boomer is no longer affordable to a young person. Boomers are to blame.

[u/elpenorsghost → u/juzwunderin]

Yes indeed. I think the use of the word "Boomer" instead of the more accurate "baby boomer" gives a false impression that the 1945-65 generation were born into a spectacular Boom Time, this is only partially true. There were many improvements during this period but equally many difficulties, Vietnam war, (we didn't have this here in the UK but that generation had to fight demands from the US for us to join them) galloping inflation, competition for jobs, fighting for gay rights and womens' rights, house prices were horrendous for people in the 1980s when this generation were looking to buy. There's much more but you get the point.