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.
Many in Europe operate on the old model where a house/home remains in a family regardless of who or whom lives there.
A property can be in a family for generations but not necessarily lived in by anyone from the direct line who purchased it; that and or it can be simply rented out.
That makes it pretty difficult to compare home ownership rates across countries then, doesn't it? If we go by that model I owned 2 homes when I turned 18 as did my brother and my sister.
That makes it pretty difficult to compare home ownership rates across countries then, doesn't it? If we go by that model I owned 2 homes when I turned 18 as did my brother and my sister.
The theory is "there is a house in the family" and at any given time someone in the family may just need a house to live in. The ownership duties may pass from one member to another over the course of time (whoever is currently in the best financial state to assume them) irrespective of the names on the deed.
My family operated that way for the whole of the 20th century, springing from land staked out by my great-great grandfather in the 1889 Oklahoma land rush. I'm working with my Millennial children to re-establish that concept.
The theory is "there is a house in the family" and at any given time someone in the family may just need a house to live in. The ownership duties may pass from one member to another over the course of time (whoever is currently in the best financial state to assume them) irrespective of the names on the deed.
My family operated that way for the whole of the 20th century, springing from land staked out by my great-great grandfather in the 1889 Oklahoma land rush. I'm working with my Millennial children to re-establish that concept.
Even if I'm performing all the duties typically associated with home ownership, if my name isn't on the deed, I'm not a home owner.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,553 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
The theory is "there is a house in the family" and at any given time someone in the family may just need a house to live in. The ownership duties may pass from one member to another over the course of time (whoever is currently in the best financial state to assume them) irrespective of the names on the deed.
My family operated that way for the whole of the 20th century, springing from land staked out by my great-great grandfather in the 1889 Oklahoma land rush. I'm working with my Millennial children to re-establish that concept.
That is very rare, the average homeowner moves every 7 years. Our oldest already owns a house, and I expect the other to buy soon, and neither would want to live in ours because it's too far to commute and bigger than they need. When we retire in a few years we will move and use the equity to pay cash for a home in a less expensive area. My parents are going to sell theirs in 2-3 years and move into assisted living, no one in the family is interested in moving there either. I remember in the late 1970s when my parents divorced and my father bought out my mother to keep the house so the kids could always have a "place to come back to." About a year later he sold it for a big fat profit.
Seems it is not all gloom and doom for the middle-class. Yes, while numbers are shrinking you do have middle class households moving up to upper levels which is a good thing.
That is very rare, the average homeowner moves every 7 years. Our oldest already owns a house, and I expect the other to buy soon, and neither would want to live in ours because it's too far to commute and bigger than they need. When we retire in a few years we will move and use the equity to pay cash for a home in a less expensive area. My parents are going to sell theirs in 2-3 years and move into assisted living, no one in the family is interested in moving there either. I remember in the late 1970s when my parents divorced and my father bought out my mother to keep the house so the kids could always have a "place to come back to." About a year later he sold it for a big fat profit.
The "family home" concept is flexible enough to accommodate that--you just make sure as houses are bought and sold that there is always one which is known as the "family home." But you're also blending in a nomad lifestyle model that has problems of its own.
And that's actually not really a new thing. Even in the more traditional concept of actually having a single house as the "family home" across generations, it was not unusual for the financially active generation to move elsewhere for financial reasons while still helping maintain the "family home" for whoever in the family needed it.
I come from a military family--and I mean everyone was military (the daughters even married soldiers) that in itself militated against the concept of having a family home. While there are advantages to having lived in other places and observed other cultures (learning that the mores of my tribe are not laws of nature), there is also a disadvantage to not having a family home. So we are working to re-establish that.
There is also the "nuclear family" concept invented after WWII that probably needs to have a stake put through its heart.
The theory is "there is a house in the family" and at any given time someone in the family may just need a house to live in. The ownership duties may pass from one member to another over the course of time (whoever is currently in the best financial state to assume them) irrespective of the names on the deed.
My family operated that way for the whole of the 20th century, springing from land staked out by my great-great grandfather in the 1889 Oklahoma land rush. I'm working with my Millennial children to re-establish that concept.
I completely understand the concept, my point was more that it's a different type of ownership model than we have in the US, so comparing home ownership rates among citizens isn't exactly apples to apples.
If all 3 of my siblings counted our parents' homes we would have had 100% home ownership across 6 people when we were in our late teens, early 20s.
Also, what impact does single vs. married (or cohabitation) have on this discussion? Is the US somewhat unique compared to many of the other countries when it comes to single living? I'm sure other countries like the UK, France, etc. are similar, but my wife and I would both endorse owning a home, whereas if we were both single neither of us would probably own a home and if one did the other may not.
I guess I'm just trying to say there are probably a ton of other variables that impact the rate of home ownership.
I completely understand the concept, my point was more that it's a different type of ownership model than we have in the US, so comparing home ownership rates among citizens isn't exactly apples to apples.
The "family home" concept is flexible enough to accommodate that--you just make sure as houses are bought and sold that there is always one which is known as the "family home." But you're also blending in a nomad lifestyle model that has problems of its own.
And that's actually not really a new thing. Even in the more traditional concept of actually having a single house as the "family home" across generations, it was not unusual for the financially active generation to move elsewhere for financial reasons while still helping maintain the "family home" for whoever in the family needed it.
I come from a military family--and I mean everyone was military (the daughters even married soldiers) that in itself militated against the concept of having a family home. While there are advantages to having lived in other places and observed other cultures (learning that the mores of my tribe are not laws of nature), there is also a disadvantage to not having a family home. So we are working to re-establish that.
There is also the "nuclear family" concept invented after WWII that probably needs to have a stake put through its heart.
OK, so you have a "family home." I get the concept.
One of the main flaws in the concept is that this one family home is in one location. That location may not serve any family members well. Careers are becoming more and more specialized, and where this home is may not serve the career needs of any individual. I'm from east Tennessee and there is little in the way of professional employment for me there. Gone are the times when people could live in the same area and make ends meet.
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.
