It used to be that most parents would provide their kids with food and shelter until they left high school. Some would stick around home while attending higher education, but most would move out on their own and start taking responsibility for themselves.
Then a funny thing happened in the economy. Stuff changed. Incomes declined while the cost of living went up.
For the first time in modern history 18-34 year olds in the US are more likely living with their parents than on their own, with roommates or with a romantic partner.
A big reason is a decline in economic opportunities. As the cost of living has escalated and wages have stagnated, young people face mounting student debt and daunting barriers to renting or owning a home, creating obstacles to cohabitation and marriage.
The trend is led by young men, whose fortunes have been declining since the 1960s. While they have always lived with their parents in greater numbers than young women, this setup became the dominant living arrangement for them in 2009. In 2014 35 percent of young men lived with parents, while only 28 percent lived with a spouse or partner (for young women, the percentages are flipped: 29 and 35, respectively).
read the full article here.
Oh yeah! It’s the end of another week and that means it’s time for another Friday Free-for-all.
This is our regular end of the week news round up and open topic discussion thread for the weekend, here are a few recent links to kick off the chat:
–Gov terrified of popping bubble
–CREA: Market ‘topped out’
–We don’t need no education
–How to pop the bubble before its too late
–BC Real estate watchdog leaving
–Anyone want to sell under market?
So what are you seeing out there? Post your news links, thoughts and anecdotes here and have an excellent weekend!
Most people in Canada don’t care about the Vancouver housing market, but that doesn’t mean they would be unaffected by a bursting housing bubble here.
Canadian Business argues that what we need is a national regulator to deal with risks in the financial system:
In 2013, the International Monetary Fund called on Canada to create a federal entity with a clear mandate to monitor threats to the financial system. The IMF earlier this month scolded Ottawa for so far ignoring its advice.
The Vancouver house-price surge is exactly the sort of thing the independent agency should handle. It is a national issue: everyone knows who will be called on to clean up the mess if it bursts. The banks would feel it and likely would curb lending. CMHC would feel it because it has insured most of the mortgages Vancouverites have used to buy their inflated assets.
Unfortunately as a politician anything you could do about the housing market would most likely be political suicide. Owners are voters and nobody wants to see the value of their home drop. Read the full article here.
A while back NDP MLA David Eby held an ‘emergency meeting‘ on the Vancouver housing crisis. (Presumably called a ‘crisis’ because the 25-44 age group is leaving Vancouver faster than they are arriving.)
But you should not be under the impression that the BC Liberals are sitting back and doing nothing about the housing situation here.
Not only have they announced new real estate rules to address many of your concerns, the minister responsible for housing will be attending a Burnaby North Breakfast on Friday May 20th about housing affordability for young first time buyers.
Tickets are only $20 and all proceeds go to support the Burnaby North Riding Association. If you are unable to make it, there is a convenient link to make a direct donation on the bottom of that page and there’s nothing that says donations are limited to developers only.
Polozi Scheme posted this link to a post at Ross McKay real estate consultants with the theory that the Vancouver real estate is a ‘currency exchange ponzi scheme’.
A investor seeking to remove Chinese Yuan from China and have it converted into a foreign currency purchases a home in Vancouver. The investor once having the currency exchange authorized and completed for the purchase to take place then offers the same opportunity to another investor who is willing to offset any costs the original investor incurred through paying a high enough price for the same home that then allows the previous investor to “break-even”. This pattern is continued over and over again causing the selling price to raise higher and higher at no risk to the investor, while at the same time offering higher and higher amounts of currency to be exchanged on the rising home price being paid.
At no time is the price paid reflective of fundamental value of the real estate being traded but is being established for ulterior purposes that are not related to normal house price growth.
At some point in time the scheme ends as the last investor is converting so much currency that the benefits exceed even the need to “break even” and the home can be sold at a net loss. When that moment is reached the appearance of sustained house price growth ends and the scheme ends moving the scheme somewhere else.
Read the full posting here.