Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who knows? Without stats, individual situations are grains of salt in the ocean. You can have a million singles able to buy homes and 10 millions unable to, and I think it'd be safe to claim that most singles aren't able to buy homes then.
Here ya go...
"...single women accounted for 20 percent of home owners while single men accounted for just 12 percent."
Certain posters on the Economics forums attempt to perpetuate the myth that Millenials are all over-educated, under-employed slackers still living at home or with a gaggle of roomies because they're weighed down with college loans and low wages. The reality, of course, is much different because the older millenials (who are only hitting their mid thirties) are doing what young adults in their late twenties and early/mid thirties have always done: moving up in their careers, buying homes, starting families.
C-D has such a wealth of information about living in cities around the US. We used it in our decision making process of where to move. Maybe some of the posters should look at C-D's resources (not the forums) and realtor.com to see what starter homes actually cost around the nation to see what their peers are buying.
Your stats don't help your point. Let me give you a hypothetical example to demonstrate why.
There are 50 million homeowners, of which 10 million are single women. There are 100 million single women in total.
So single women make up 20% of homeowners, but most single women don't own homes.
Umm, I never said most did. I said the poster's situation wasn't unique, nor unusual. Lots of singles do own homes, regardless of how many don't. The stats absolutely make my point.
Umm, I never said most did. I said the poster's situation wasn't unique, nor unusual. Lots of singles do own homes, regardless of how many don't. The stats absolutely make my point.
Um no. 1,000 can be considered many for example, but next to a population of millions, it's not many. Do you understand the logic?
Yepper. See below. Ol' freemkt is complaining because he thinks the only way singles can afford SFD is by having roommates, and that zoning doesn't allow that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
So you're engaging in class warfare. Which actually is a great American tradition. Subdivisions were created and built for the stereotypical family of four, even though we have always had a large number of childless singles in this country. When demographics changed, and market forces allowed singles to live in SFR, the family values homeownerist NIMBYs employed zoning to ghettoize singles in undesirable locations and structures..
Yepper. See below. Ol' freemkt is complaining because he thinks the only way singles can afford SFD is by having roommates, and that zoning doesn't allow that.
The fact that a policy was made with the intent of forcing singles out of a neighborhood is not logically contradictory with the fact that not all singles have left. Why is this so hard to understand?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
