I think both sides of that discussion have wriggle room to a common agreement.

Like nhracecraft guy, I have a young son, 23. Reserve USMC full time firefighter. Makes jack shit for two jobs that can be scary as fuck. Different discussion. Although I will add, I cringe anytime anybody says teachers don’t make enough after seeing what the guy who drags you out of your burning house makes. Like I said different discussion. He is buying his first house.

Times have changed, prices have changed, but to ignore the differences in expectations and lifestyle between those two generations is disingenuous.

My mom died this year and me and my sisters are disposing of her and dad’s assets. One of those assets is the first house my folks ever bought. 3 kids at the time. 1198 square feet 3/2. If I tried to move my wife into that house today she would revolt. lol. My first house in the Navy. Also a 3/2 but 2000 square feet. Bigger but still reasonably sized by today’s standards.

My son and nha’s son sound pretty frugal. That isn’t the norm. ORC ain’t wrong. Young people who “can’t afford” a house seem to afford a whole bunch of shit that earlier generations didn’t have, couldn’t afford, and didn’t need.

Expensive phones, expensive cars, expensive vacations, fancy coffees, eating out regularly, this list writes itself. Plus the reason they don’t make a lot of 1198 sq ft houses is because younger people would not buy them. They can get bigger apartments.

There is a little of both events occurring. Real prices have absolutely gone up. Salaries haven’t kept pace. The mantra of frugality on any level though is rare nowadays across the spectrum. Yes it exists but at a fraction of what was the norm. Mainly because back then nobody was “loaning” you money for all this extraneous shit you don’t actually need.

ORC, no disrespect, is sounding like an old man. That doesn’t mean he’s completely wrong though. And you guys who blame it all on prices aren’t all right. Never in American history has such a large amount of our collective incomes been spent on purely discretionary bullshit.

I got more but I suspect this might be lively so I will keep some powder dry. lol. Enjoy!

quote:

Young people who “can’t afford” a house seem to afford a whole bunch of shit that earlier generations didn’t have, couldn’t afford, and didn’t need.

Expensive phones, expensive cars, expensive vacations, fancy coffees, eating out regularly, this list writes itself. Plus the reason they don’t make a lot of 1198 sq ft houses is because younger people would not buy them. They can get bigger apartments.

When my wife and I got married we had an apartment for the first year. It was the cheapest apartment we could find. It didn't even have air conditioning. We ate the cheapest food we could buy. We drove beater cars. We scrimped and saved and within a year we had a down payment for our first house. It was only a 1440 square foot home, but we thought it was a castle.

But... back then nobody had a cell phone or a cable bill.

Thanks Pedropcola, None taken
As far as being an old man. I am sure I am in upper half of the median SF range

Debt is at an all time high. Off the charts actually. So everything you said is true. The 25-40 crowd really in trouble primarily due to debt. Not all but the vast majority of them for the reasons you mentioned.

My interest rate on my first home purchase was 8.5%. Which was pretty good at the time.

I find home prices to be more of an issue than the interest rate right now.

But i do not see home prices going down a whole lot. At least in the near term. But location will have tons to do with it.

Another huge factor in affordability is the huge corps buying up all the houses for their mega rental business in certain area's. This in large part is due to lots of the current generations do not wish to be home owners. They just want to rent for ever. Which drove up the prices during covid and after.

The younger generation can buy homes. But as I said earlier. They are going to have to be disciplined and have their act together and priorities set to do so and be successful.

I see kids (Gen Z) working at stores, playing with their $1000 phones. They have $500 device watches on. And the same $250 AirPod Pros that I have but I’m decades older. This same gen whines about everything. College costs. Well I looked into what my MBA would cost at a respectable, state university, in my metro, and the cost is extremely affordable. If I budgeted out that MBA over 4 years, versus 2, my work would virtually pay for all of it via tuition reimbursement. And tuition reimbursement is something you can get at an entry level position at thousands of companies.

As it relates to a domicile. In my 20’s, even post college, I was living in 600 sq ft apartments. Today, for some reason, that’s not big enough for these Gen Z. Well neither was the car I drove back then, the phone I had, etc.

If you meal prep and/or cook your own meals at home. If you get a new phone say every 4 years. Get a new computer say every 5-7. Drive a modest vehicle like a Civic or Corolla, well you could afford to buy a new home. Is that applicable for every zip code? Certainly not. But even 20+ years ago, post college, I was frugal in a lot of areas. A budget is a budget. You can’t blow heaps on iDevices then complain about the cost of rent or a house. Likewise you can’t go lease a Tesla and complain about the same. Even now as a grown ass man, I limit what I spend on dining out, pretty severely. I don’t go to bars or any high priced ticket events. Vacays are frugal. Everything is frugal as a homeowner so I can blow my money on my vehicles, and maintenance. You just can’t have it all on a normal income. Something has to give.

Thought I'd do a little searching, this is from a report by Landmark Wealth Management..
Link Housing costs 1980 vs 2025

Affordability Then vs Now

In the early 1980s, the American Dream of homeownership felt tantalizingly close for many, even as double-digit interest rates loomed large. Fast-forward to 2025, and headlines scream about a housing crisis: sky-high prices, stagnant wages for young buyers, and millennials entering the market in their late 30s or older. But how do these snapshots stack up?

Drawing on historical data from home sizes, prices, incomes, mortgage rates, and down payments, dissecting affordability then and now is not as black-and-white as you might think. High rates crushed 1980s buyers, but today’s barriers are broader and more structural.


The Evolution of the American Home: Bigger, But at What Cost?

Homes have ballooned in size since 1980, reflecting a cultural shift toward “McMansions” and suburban sprawl. The median new single-family home in 1980 was around 1,595 square feet, a cozy footprint for the era’s families. By 2024, that figure had swelled to 2,210 square feet a 39% increase as buyers demanded open kitchens, home offices, and three-car garages.

Prices per square foot tell a starker story of escalation. In 1980, new homes averaged $42 per square foot; today, it’s $169, a nominal quadrupling, or about 3.21% annual growth compounded over 44 years. Adjusted for general inflation (3.09% via CPI), that’s a modest real gain of 0.12% annually above normal inflation, suggesting homes haven’t outpaced the cost of living per unit of space dramatically.

While there has been small increase in inflation adjusted prices, this growth isn’t just inflation. It’s fueled by land scarcity, zoning laws, and investor demand, making entry-level homes scarcer today, and “McMansions” more common.

Incomes: The Slow Crawl of the Middle Class

Wage growth has been the Achilles’ heel of affordability. Median household income in 1980 was $16,400 annually, equivalent to about $70,800 in today’s dollars after inflation. By 2024 median income reached $83,730, a nominal 411% rise, but only 18% in real terms over 44 years. Dual-income households are now the norm (up from 50% in 1980 to 60% today), masking stagnation for single earners or young families.

In the ’80s, a typical family could save for a home in under four years of full income; today, it takes five-plus, exacerbated by student debt.


Mortgages and Down Payments: The Financing Hurdle

Then there is the mortgage market, where the villain in the 1980’s was sky-high rates. The average 30-year fixed rate in 1980 hit 13.74%, due to Volcker’s war on inflation. Today’s 6.7% feels steep post-pandemic, but pales in comparison. This makes the cost of financing much more affordable by today’s standards.

Down payments tell a tale of caution then versus creativity now. In 1980, buyers averaged 28% down, a hefty $18,100 on a $64,600 home to offset rate risks. First-time buyers today have a median down payment of just 9% ($37,600 on $417,400), thanks to low-down-payment loans like FHA.

Looking at yields on monthly payments for a 30-year loan:

Scenario 1980 Principal 1980 Monthly Pmt 2024 Principal 2024 Monthly Pmt
Era-Typical Down Payment $46,512 (28%) $542 $379,834 (9%) $2,451

At $542 monthly in 1980, that payment consumed 40% of a median household’s $1,367 monthly income, which was a heavy burden, often forcing skipped vacations or side jobs. Today’s $2,451 consumes 35% of $6,978 monthly income, which is actually more manageable.

What about property taxes

1980 Average Annual Bill: $946 per owner-occupied home

2024 Average Annual Bill: $5,372 per owner-occupied home

Inflation-Adjusted (Real) Increase: This is an inflation adjusted increase of 0.91%, well below CPI.

However, it’s important to keep in mind that this is a national average, and these numbers can vary widely from state to state. Families living in high tax states will commonly see property tax amounts well into the five figures. Nevertheless, on a national level, property taxes have grown much slower than inflation.

How about Homeowners Insurance

As per National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)

1980 Average Annual Premium: $330 based on the median home value.

2024 Average Annual Premium: $2,500 based on the median home value.

Here we see an average annual increase of about 4.5% annually, which is above the 3.09% rate of CPI over that same time period.

But keep in mind, as mentioned earlier, the median home has grown from 1,595 square feet to 2,210 square feet. That means the median home is about 39% bigger than in 1980. When you adjust for the size of the homes, the cost to insure per square foot has only grown by about 0.82% in real terms, which is well below the 3.09% annual inflation rate. This means that homeowner’s insurance is more affordable than it was in 1980.



Personal Pursuits Impact Outcomes

According to the US Census homeownership was 65% nationwide in 1980 and today hovers at 66%. But for under 35 years old, it’s fallen from 43% to 38%.

It’s also important to point out that a combination of more women in the workforce and two-family incomes, combined with longer academic careers have prolonged some of these factors.

As an example, the percentage of people over 25 pursing advanced degrees such as a master’s or PhD program has increased from 7% to 14% since 1980.

As a result, the median age to get married and start a family since 1980 has gone from age 22 to age 28 for women, and from age 24 to age 30 for men.

Additionally, the median age for a woman to have her first child has gone from age 22 to age 27.

This can explain some of why homeownership has fallen among younger people, as many younger people have delayed this stage of their life in pursuit of other priorities, and taken on substantial debt in order to pursue these alternative goals.





Affordability Verdict

By raw metrics, 2024 edges out 1980 in affordability as lower rates mean payments are a smaller slice of monthly income, and homes offer more space for the buck adjusted for inflation. Yet the crisis feels acute because of various factors:

Entry Barriers: First-time buyers’ median age rose from 29 in 1980 to 40 today, delayed by the heavy student loan debt burden.

Wealth Gaps: Investors and all-cash retirees make up 30% of the purchases in 2024, and crowd out newcomers, unlike the ’80s builder boom.

Regional Divides: Homes are much more affordable in places like the mid-west, and extremely unaffordable for young people in places like New York and California.


Contrary to the common narrative, the data shows us that while the amount needed for a down payment is larger today on a relative basis, overall homes are still actually slightly more affordable nationally today compared to 1980.

Much of the recent narrative is a result of a recent spike in home prices. It’s also important to remember that asset classes are cyclical. The U.S. housing market peaked in mid-2006, with the national median home price reaching approximately $230,200 (per National Association of Realtors data). The 2008 financial crisis triggered a sharp decline, bottoming out in early 2012 at around $172,000, a drop of about 25% from the peak. Prices then began a steady recovery, driven by low interest rates, pent-up demand, and limited supply.

The median price fully recovered to the 2006 peak level in 2013 when the median price hit $231,000. This marked a recovery timeline of approximately 7 years from the 2006 peak.



While the data says that home affordability is not as bad as advertised, wage growth remains a problem. If real wages continue to stagnate, then the problem of affordable housing will become more problematic.

To make housing more affordable, we need more shovels in the ground building more units to adjust for population growth. This means regulatory reforms and other incentives for new construction.

^^ For the record, the Median Home Price is currently $425,000!

https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/

I'll be back with more later

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^ For the record, the Median Home Price is currently $425,000!

I'll be back with more later

And as I said. What that means is that there are lots of homes for sale that cost a lot more than that. And a lot more that cost a lot less than that.

^^ Dude, EVERYTHING in the post by HRK to which I was responding to was based on 'Medians'! Somehow, the current Median Home Price wasn't mentioned in the info from Landmark under 'Affordability Verdict' when the historical data re: Median Home Price was presented. I posted it because by comparison it is a relevant number!

I'm just looking at the numbers here. Individual finances vary, and those with excess debt and overtaxed budgets won't be approved for ANY mortgage! By contrast, the numbers you which you were speaking of in the other thread were only relevant prior to the invention of fax machines and the internet!

If this number is median and not mean, then it may not be clear that's the case.

If you have 1000 homes and 999 are $425K and 1 is $1M, the median (and mean) will be $425K.

If you have 1000 homes and 400 are $200K, 400 are $1M and 200 are $425K, the median is still $425K (mean is about $565K).

Basically, I think it's indeterminate how many homes are higher or lower than the median. Average as well since the upper bound is unknown.

That being said, we know that there are a lot of houses, especially by region, that are much more than the median (silicon valley - almost every house is (much) higher than the national median).

One thing to perhaps consider (perhaps two) are:
1. the wealth being generated besides wages (ie - stock grants at high tech firms). This is unnatural and different from before.

2. something to do w/ the level of illegal immigration and/or foreign investment now vs then (ie - rich chicom buying up property with cash at inflated prices for whatever reason)

In reality, half the homes are above the median and half are below. Finding a market where 999 out of 1,000 homes are priced exactly the same is not reality. I highly doubt there’s a lot of markets where 50 out of 1,000 home would be priced exactly the same.

quote:

To make housing more affordable, we need more shovels in the ground building more units to adjust for population growth. This means regulatory reforms and other incentives for new construction.

The birth rate is less than replacement.
The only recent population growth has been immigration. I think we are getting a handle on that.

The fertility rate in the U.S. dropped to an all-time low in 2024 with less than 1.6 kids per woman, new federal data released Thursday shows.

The U.S. was once among only a few developed countries with a rate that ensured each generation had enough children to replace itself — about 2.1 kids per woman. But it has been sliding in America for close to two decades as more women are waiting longer to have children or never taking that step at all.

https://apnews.com/article/fer...f29b32212db9cfa0e0af

Not challenging just wondering out loud - is that statistic based on legacy assumptions of children per married couple? Or does it assuming something modern like 1 guy and 15 different women having children out of wedlock? Or the rich chicoms having 1000 surrogate kids here? Does it count the children coming in illegaly? (absurd examples just for concept).

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
In reality, half the homes are above the median and half are below. Finding a market where 999 out of 1,000 homes are priced exactly the same is not reality. I highly doubt there’s a lot of markets where 50 out of 1,000 home would be priced exactly the same.

Just a conceptual illustration to point out my understanding of median vs mean and related inferences. And I'm not really sure that's true - I would guess that there are many more homes that are closer to the median and below than above. Median is the mid-point of the data, not the midpoint of the range of data.

What would be telling is having the median, mean and std dev.

It depends where you live, it's disingenuous to quote an average US price as if that's the way it is everywhere, it's not, there are wide differences across the USA.


The average (median) home price in California hovers around the high $800,000s to over $900,000, with recent reports showing figures like $852,680 (Nov 2025) and $904,210 (April 2024)

The average home price in West Virginia varies by source, but generally falls in the $170,000 - $259,000 range for median sale/value, with Zillow showing an average home value around $169k and Redfin/Bankrate listing median sale prices closer to $247k-$259k as of late 2025, reflecting an affordable market compared to national averages, though prices are rising.

Agree - that's the point I was leading to. Regional prices and wages are disparate and conclusions based on national numbers can be misleading.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
Not challenging just wondering out loud - is that statistic based on legacy assumptions of children per married couple? Or does it assuming something modern like 1 guy and 15 different women having children out of wedlock? Or the rich chicoms having 1000 surrogate kids here? Does it count the children coming in illegaly? (absurd examples just for concept).

It's just births per woman. It has nothing to do with marriage or how many baby daddys or even how many pregnancies. It's just births per woman.

quote:

It's just births per woman. It has nothing to do with marriage or how many baby daddys or even how many pregnancies. It's just births per woman.

Got it, thanks. So, in the old days, 2 kids may be replacement. But today, 1.6 kids may be more than replacement if baby daddys are significant.

I don’t know anything about the numbers but just want to point out HRK’s post that lumps “average” and “median” together is not correct. The two are not interchangeable.

Replacement is considered 2.1. (this takes into account births that don't make it to adulthood)
1.6 is NOT replacement.
It has nothing to do with who the daddy is...