Slashdot Mirror
Nobody Is Moving, Especially Millennials (nymag.com)
For a fun new entry into millennials are lazy, consider this: According to new data tracked down by Richard Fry for Pew Research, just 20 percent of 25- to 35-year-olds (Old Millennials, if you will) reported having lived at a different address the previous year. From a report on NYMag: In 2000, a full 26 percent of Gen-Xers -- then at the same age range -- had reported making a move in the previous year. In 1963, members of the Silent Generation moved at a 26 percent rate, too. The census data being used here doesn't include college-dorm moves prevalent with 18- to 24-year-olds, so those young'uns are left out of the analysis. The 20 percent rate is the lowest level of young adult mobility in half a century, Fry reports, and all this with millennials getting married, owning homes, and having kids less than previous generations. Student debt and less favorable lending rates may be driving down homeownership -- imagine that -- which further reduces movement. Psychologically, this also means that young adults are more stuck with their personalities and faded of memory compared with their more mobile peers.
keep dreaming. there is no bubble this time cause i don't hear about short term loans being used to buy homes with no money down like 10 years ago
You do realize that if the banks and the financial system had seized up, no one would be buying anything for a long, long time, yes?
Many bank shareholders lost plenty. The systemic risk was enabled by weak federal oversight and did not only involve the banks. The developers, the real estate agents, the local pols, dear sainted Americans who (flipped houses and/or bought stupidly and/or double mortgaged), etc. The list is of perps is long.
And what lesson did the pols learn? Screw all the banks equally, even the small-town banks that were not part of the problem. And now the goal is to remove as many constraints as possible, without fixing any of the underlying reasons the perps were able to walk away with the loot.
It may take a bit of time, but there will be another bubble, and the rules will be such that the fed. gov. won't be able to make the financial sector liquid again very easily. When that happens, watch out.
Bubble? What bubble, my house is still worth 20% less than when I bought it 10 years ago. There is no bubble, and that's why people aren't moving. They owe too much on their house from last time the bubble burst. If selling your house means you have to pay the bank money to close out the mortgage, you're probably not going to move.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
sure you might make more money cash wise, but you're going to be a perpetual renter aka sharecropper with nothing to your name
putting down roots means you can buy property at a younger age which means you will pay it off faster and have kids at a younger age. the perpetual movers will be the people having their first kid at 45 and no spare cash from having their rent increase all the time
Not true at all. You have to recall that all surveys and questionnaires are only valid for the demographic that chooses to participate in surveys or questionnaires.
My family and I have moved for almost every job I have had in the tech sector and we have had 8 children in the last 20 years. No, we don't own a home, but we are currently working on a Bus to live in as we move between contracts.
Our debt to income ration is damn low for a couple in their 40's. If I were to buy I would save up and pay outright. Retirement starts with a low debt to income ratio. Who the hell want's a mortgage?
So far the list has been:
- California,
- Oregon,
- California,
- Florida,
- The Great Nation of Texas
- Oregon.
Anyone have any DevOps / System Engineer roles in Texas? PM me! :)
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
I've been trying to move to CA from the Midwest for years now (my wife's family is in CA and she needs to take care of an aging parent), but it's tough since no company is willing to pay for a move unless you have a very specific skill they're looking for that they can't find locally (I'm very good at my job, but I'm nothing special as far as skills go). Trying to interview long distance is also difficult, even with things like Skype (assuming they even will do it). Our current options appear to be either A. Blow our life savings on a move across country and hope I can get a job before we go broke, or B. Find a company that is willing to hire long distance and hope they don't decide to lay me off before our finances recover from the move. As much as my wife wants to be back in CA, she won't risk our future on it.
I've always been curious about how people are able to jump from one side of the country to the other and support themselves with no problems. Maybe it's because the people who do it are usually young with no real possessions to weigh them down? At my age (40), the risks start outweighing the benefits in many cases.
It was determined during the late 1980's and early 1990's that an artificially lowered prime rate would spur the economy better than a "normal" or "fair" prime rate. Why?
1) Lowered mortgage interest. People who are in debt can afford to stay in debt. Banks love this because they basically own you if you're in debt to them.
2) Lowered savings interest. People who aren't in debt are getting screwed. Banks love this because it encourages everyone else to spend themselves into slavery to the banks.
So now everyone just pisses away their money as fast as they can because there's no reason not to. And when shit goes wrong, there's nothing left to save anyone, not even the banks.
Fucking genius.
Hopefully this time they don't bail out the banks and and the idiots who bought mcmansions.
And how do you imagine that would work out? If everyone's bank accounts suddenly evaporate, your savings will be gone. And your employer's bank accounts will disappear. And your employer's customers' bank accounts will disappear. And then you have riots in the streets.
I suppose the houses that escape the fires will be cheaper, assuming anyone has money to buy them. You won't be able to get a loan because the banks will be gone, and you'll have no savings, so it's not clear where that money will come from.. And it's not clear what currency anyone will be accepting.
Cyprus set the template for the bail-in. Basically, they can freeze all "cash-equivalent" assets for weeks and when unfrozen, everything above the FDIC** insurance limit takes a haircut (40% in the case of Cyprus)... This event basically put everyone on notice to have a contingency plan for this. If your employer doesn't have a contingency for this, they are stupid. If you are carrying cash-equivalent assets above the FDIC/SIPC limit, you are either too rich to care, or have stupidly invested your money.
The theory of the bail-in, is that it forces "rich" folks to take appropriate risks with their money and not burden the state with being the backstop for deposit insurance to those that should be able to manage the risk. Some people don't seem to understand that in order to work at all, it requires the *pause* (frozen-assets), otherwise these events just precipitates a bank run.
Historically, in order to avoid major FDIC insurance impact of liquidation, the FDIC has shopped the bank assets to other banks (so-called purchase and assumption agreements), but has needed to kick in a sweetener to cover the over FDIC limit deposits. Now the FDIC can simply convert over-limit FDIC deposits into bank-shares which eliminates the need for them to kick in the sweetener. Unfortunately, the rules are ambiguous an allow them to convert *any deposits* into bank-shares if it is deemed necessary if it "mitigates the potential for serious adverse effects to the financial system.”
**of course in Cyprus, the insurance limit was defined by the EU...
It just depends on if you went to school after 2005 when the rules changed. If you default on your loans the loan holder can apply very high interest rates ( I have seen as high as 30% and growing) making it effectively impossible to pay off. The payments become higher than a mortgage payment where a $10,000 original loan turns into a $100,000 non-dischargable debt. At some point, no matter how much money you throw at the loan, it will grow and it can never be gotten rid of even if you throw every penny you have at it. Many people have given up paying off their debt at huge economic uncertainty for retirement because they have no future because any wage can be garnished for life effectively.
Yes, in the good ole days student loans were not predatory but that changed in 2005 when the loaning industry was deregulated allowing for predatory practices. Just because what you went through was fine does not mean it is the same today.