Parents buying houses for kids

[id77]

Originally Posted by inquisitive2

1. Most working class/lower income retirees either have to move out of state or try to get into some type of subsidized housing-of which there is not enough.

2. I listed DINKS as having a negative affect on cost of living because most of todays living exepenses are now based on 2 adults working per household vs. 1 adult supporting a household. All living costs/taxes and the like have more than doubled as a result.

3.High housing costs are a direct result of exorbitant inflation due to the influx of wealthy out of staters and investors.

While the wealthy are not negatively affected by these high costs,the working class and lower income people are. Inadequate income does make working class/lower income people disposable. (ie., gjving them no place locally to go).

It used to be that rent or mortgage expenses would be in range with average household income. This no longer applies as even 1 bedroom apartments now starts at $2500.00 and increases the closer you get to Boston. (A major negative effect due to the influx of high income earners settling in what were working class areas).

4. Finally there's the wage impact of workforces/staff that is negatively affected by global and local corporations, and their leaders. (As they increase their executive salaries and benefits while stagnating and/or reducing the wages and benefits of their workforce/staff).

2. Many of those DINKs are DINKs out of necessity. When it takes two full-time incomes to pay the rent, people find a way, so why blame them for doing what it takes for them to survive in this housing environment. I suppose they could protest the situation by refusing to pay the high rents, but then they're jettisoned out to the outer burbs, and then what happens? Right, they compete for those homes in a Marlborough or Rowley and drive the prices up there as homes are sold to the highest bidder.

3. There are lower-income retirees that are pushed out and forced to go live somewhere with a low CoL, sure, but my point here is that claiming that most/all of the money pushing these people out must necessarily be coming from out of state/country is just not true. Even worse, it makes it sound like we're being invaded when we're not. It's not us vs. them here, it's us vs. us.

The retirees I see looking at homes aren't the poor/working class ones, but they're also not from out of state. Think your typical Wellesley or Lincoln couple who shipped their kids off to college and don't need the 6,000 sq. ft. estate anymore, so they downsize into a 2,000 sq. ft. in the city to be close to the Symphony or their favorite restaurant.

There absolutely is income inequality, and it's a problem that needs dealt with. There's also a problem with insufficient housing to meet the demand, and that directly drives up the prices. When there's only enough housing in the inner/better neighborhoods to satisfy 25% of the population that wants to live in those areas, and 25% of the population makes significantly above the median income, the math says that housing is going to only be affordable to that same 25% because the market will bear it. That's what's changed in the last 30 years - the top income brackets are pulling further away from the other brackets.

The remaining 75% aren't suddenly disposable; we still need those types of workers in the city, even if sometimes there are a few who forget that. They just simply don't have the resources to compete with the those who work in management/tech/finance/medicine/law and make $200k+ per year and want to live in the same places as the teachers, service, or construction workers.

[bugelrex]

This thread can be summarized simply: "life is not fair" be it housing, education, jobs or relationships.

Unless you want socialism or communism, its going to continue.

[scorpio516]

Originally Posted by inquisitive2

In many homes both parents did work in the seventies but for extras- not just to get by. And at that time rents and mortgages were still based on 1 salaries-typically the husbands.

And in Medford as with all of greater Bostin rents climb annually. Many oay almost $2,000 just for studios and not including electric or heat.

Not in the 70s. Barely in the 60s too.

Neither of which has to do with DINKs but with women's liberation.

In 1960, average rent was $568 adjusted for inflation nationwide
In 1970, average rent was $670
In 1980, $698
In 1990, $810
In 2000, $828
In 2010, $928

Not adjusted for inflation, household income average was:
1960 - $5600 $47143 in 2017 USD
1970 - $8730 $47538
1980 - $15944 $48462
1990 - $27522 $52623
2000 - $39772 $57724
2010 - $46658 $53570

In 1960, 33% of with workforce was female
1970 = 38%
1980 = 42.5%
1990 = 45%
2000 = 46%
2010 = 46%

So basically, as more people worked, all that really happened was inflation. Rents DID raise as dual income families expanded. In 1960, one parent worked and 14% of income was spent on rent. in 2010, both parents worked and 21% of income was spent on rent

[westender]

^ The post above demonstrates that annual rent went from under 15% of 1960 household income to over 20% of 2010 household income (in inflation-adjusted dollars).

This doesn't surprise me too much, as rental properties have gotten much nicer since those days. However, I think if these numbers were run by MSA, you would see huge leaps in certain areas (namely Boston or NYC or California).

[skeddy]

don't those that can't, wish they could buy their kids a house?

Why so much angst over this?

You should be happy for them. Is this all about envy and jealousy?

[skeddy]

Originally Posted by scorpio516

Not in the 70s. Barely in the 60s too.

Neither of which has to do with DINKs but with women's liberation.

In 1960, average rent was $568 adjusted for inflation nationwide
In 1970, average rent was $670
In 1980, $698
In 1990, $810
In 2000, $828
In 2010, $928

Not adjusted for inflation, household income average was:
1960 - $5600 $47143 in 2017 USD
1970 - $8730 $47538
1980 - $15944 $48462
1990 - $27522 $52623
2000 - $39772 $57724
2010 - $46658 $53570

In 1960, 33% of with workforce was female
1970 = 38%
1980 = 42.5%
1990 = 45%
2000 = 46%
2010 = 46%

So basically, as more people worked, all that really happened was inflation. Rents DID raise as dual income families expanded. In 1960, one parent worked and 14% of income was spent on rent. in 2010, both parents worked and 21% of income was spent on rent

Good point. Buy/rent what you can afford, of course DINK's have an advantage.

Unaffordable housing. -- Welcome to the 21st century progressives. Unintended consequences of professional women in the workplace and economics?

Just makes something else "unfair" I guess. .

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by skeddy

Good point. Buy/rent what you can afford, of course DINK's have an advantage.

Unaffordable housing. -- Welcome to the 21st century progressives. Unintended consequences of professional women in the workplace and economics?

Just makes something else "unfair" I guess. .

I don't think there's anything progressive about personal freedoms. Not all woman wish to be child care takers, at least not as the sole identity.

[Beachcomber4]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

I don't think there's anything progressive about personal freedoms. Not all woman wish to be child care takers, at least not as the sole identity.

This is why we as a society are in deep deep trouble.

People who choose to love, nurture and put time into raising decent human beings are not "child care takers" and those who do, aren't choosing that as their sole identity.

It is those people who would diminish the role and responsibility that comes with parenthood that do that.