Why Baby Boomers Don't Understand Occupy Wall Street

[mawilson 2,133]

The point is that the older generation did not have to wait 10 years to be able to save for a downpayment. They could do it comfortably on 1 paycheck for a family of 5.

Really? I don't think that's true at all.

[Alex & Rachel 78]

It was true for my grandparents and parents... I do not know how long they saved specifically, but they were all definitely homeowners before their 30s, so I really can't imagine it was more than 10 years.

[Nina~ 431]

Really? I don't think that's true at all.

Rachel's Post # 258

[slim 1,533]

The point is that the older generation did not have to wait 10 years to be able to save for a downpayment. They could do it comfortably on 1 paycheck for a family of 5.

Without cell phones and 145 premium channels it probably wouldn't take long for us to save either.

If you factored out things like $4 coffee, it could be even quicker!

I've been fortunate in both obtaining a degree and finding a boss who's been willing to take a chance on me, help train me and promote me (I've gained three wage increases in two years).

And honestly, I'm not going to be saving that much for much longer. We're going to have to find our own apartment soon (doubt roommates want to share with a baby!) which is going to pretty much double our rent (even for a one-bed/studio) and utilities. And all of Alex's paycheck will go on paying his mother to look after the baby part-time. I don't mind, though. It's my decision and I've pretty much given up on ever owning a house, anyway. Besides, renting has its advantages. No repair/maintenance costs!

If you didn't have a baby and stayed in that situation for another year or two you'd have plenty for the down payment on a house. As you've acknowledged, you've made the choice to not do that.

The difference between you and these hippies out doing nothing in the parks is they've blamed it on someone else.

It was true for my grandparents and parents... I do not know how long they saved specifically, but they were all definitely homeowners before their 30s, so I really can't imagine it was more than 10 years.

I wonder if it would've taken them longer if they would've had cell phones?

[Alex & Rachel 78]

Well... they had landlines. Back then they'd have been as expensive (relative to income) as cellphone plans are now.

One reason I never had a landline in the UK was because it was actually cheaper to have a cellphone.

And... that fact is still that house prices/rent and utilities are still comparatively higher than they were for our parents. No amount of frugality is going to change that.

The cheapest properties here are about $280,000. If I was to save for a 10% deposit that'd be $28,000 - which would take me 5 years to save, not two. And it certainly wouldn't be a house.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Well... they had landlines. Back then they'd have been as expensive (relative to income) as cellphone plans are now.

One reason I never had a landline in the UK was because it was actually cheaper to have a cellphone.

And... that fact is still that house prices/rent and utilities are still comparatively higher than they were for our parents. No amount of frugality is going to change that.

The cheapest properties here are about $280,000. If I was to save for a 10% deposit that'd be $28,000 - which would take me 5 years to save, not two. And it certainly wouldn't be a house.

Actually I found super cheap properties in Contra Costa Co. I'm seriously thinking of buying two next year. If I can find a decent 100,000 USD one in a rentable area I might jump.

[slim 1,533]

The cheapest properties here are about $280,000. If I was to save for a 10% deposit that'd be $28,000 - which would take me 5 years to save, not two. And it certainly wouldn't be a house.

There you go. 20% down in only ten years. What's the problem?

[Alex & Rachel 78]

Well, it would require my husband and I to share an apartment with two other people for those ten years. Not impossible (if we had no kids) but not something our parents were expected to do.

It would also require rent prices not to rise at a greater rate than my salary. Which, given the past few years' history, is unlikely.

Lastly, in ten years' time I'll be 38.

Oh...and this is still for the cheapest, smallest apartment.

So... compared to my father, who owned a house aged 28 while having three children and only one income.

Of course, this is also assuming no extra additional costs - assuming I stay in good health, that I can make my already-old car last as long as possible, and that I retain my job.

[slim 1,533]

Well, it would require my husband and I to share an apartment with two other people for those ten years. Not impossible (if we had no kids) but not something our parents were expected to do.

It would also require rent prices not to rise at a greater rate than my salary. Which, given the past few years' history, is unlikely.

Lastly, in ten years' time I'll be 38.

Oh...and this is still for the cheapest, smallest apartment.

So... compared to my father, who owned a house aged 28 while having three children and only one income.

Of course, this is also assuming no extra additional costs - assuming I stay in good health, that I can make my already-old car last as long as possible, and that I retain my job.

So we've narrowed it down to housing. Why are houses so much more expensive today than they were 30 years ago?

[Golden Gate 530]

So we've narrowed it down to housing. Why are houses so much more expensive today than they were 30 years ago?

The Housing Bubble:

"The Economics of Housing Bubbles

Nothing better illustrates government failure and the housing crisis than the housing

bubble. Government policies make homes increasingly expensive and beyond the

economic reach of first-time home buyers. Then as interest rates rise and housing prices

fall, many home buyers find themselves with bad investments that they can no longer

afford. What started as a government effort to improve the prospects for home ownership

through a policy of “easy money” ends up having unintended consequences that will

leave many Americans economically scarred for the rest of their lives..."

My link

[GringoD 33]

I'm a babyboomer.

I guess.

I think I understand.

I graduated from undergraduate school in 1975.

College graduates were a dime-a-dozen.

I waited tables (and, made more $ than most of those who graduated with me that year and got work in their chosen field of study), .... and did other odd jobs for 3 or more years, before going to professional school.

AND, ABOUT 5 YEARS LATER, THE AMERICAN ECONOMY WENT INTO ORBIT!

So, all I've got to say is, QUIT BITCHING AND GET TO WORK AND STUDY.

AND, MAKE THE AMERICAN DREAM COME TRUE FOR YOU!

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

What is it with this nonsense that people shouldn't have smartphones and cable and that will solve their problems?

Honestly slim, these things are called PROGRESS.

I suppose people should never have switched from gas lights to electricity in their homes; never had a "wireless" (radio); never bought color televisions.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

It was true for my grandparents and parents... I do not know how long they saved specifically, but they were all definitely homeowners before their 30s, so I really can't imagine it was more than 10 years.

He doesn't know the answer because he wasn't there.

We all bought houses with low-down payment loans through state housing programs, the FHA, the FMHA, or the VA. We were able to do that because US government bonds were worth more than Chinese dollars. And because private mortgage insurance was "invented".

Not because we were "frugal".

My parents bought their house in 1959 with a VA loan, a loan from a finance company, and a small second mortgage carried by the builder/seller. I bought my first house in 1979 through a state bond program.

[mawilson 2,133]

We all bought houses with low-down payment loans through state housing programs, the FHA, the FMHA, or the VA. We were able to do that because US government bonds were worth more than Chinese dollars. And because private mortgage insurance was "invented".

You're kidding, right? Mortgage rates have never been lower!

[slim 1,533]

What is it with this nonsense that people shouldn't have smartphones and cable and that will solve their problems?

Honestly slim, these things are called PROGRESS.

I suppose people should never have switched from gas lights to electricity in their homes; never had a "wireless" (radio); never bought color televisions.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have those things. What I'm saying is the people out there b!tching about not having enough money and not being able to buy a house or whatnot sure seem to have enough money for things like cell phones and premium cable.

Many drive nice cars. Some even smoke!

If they really had it that bad, how could they afford all this nice stuff?

He doesn't know the answer because he wasn't there.

We all bought houses with low-down payment loans through state housing programs, the FHA, the FMHA, or the VA. We were able to do that because US government bonds were worth more than Chinese dollars. And because private mortgage insurance was "invented".

Not because we were "frugal".

My parents bought their house in 1959 with a VA loan, a loan from a finance company, and a small second mortgage carried by the builder/seller. I bought my first house in 1979 through a state bond program.

So basically the government helped you but they're not helping people today?

Seriously?

If that's the case then why aren't these knuckleheads protesting the government instead of Wall Street?

You're kidding, right? Mortgage rates have never been lower!

Yeah, I'm not sure where she's getting that either. I guess she's saying all those programs aren't available anymore.

That must explain why all these underqualified people were able to buy houses they're now foreclosed on.