The Democratic Party's Slide Into Irrelevance

Owning a home and having your name on the title are two vastly different things in:

I don’t see it so much as boomers being born into unprecedented wealth as gaining unprecedented access to consumer credit, especially after the dollar was decoupled from gold.

You graph shows that people owning outright with no debt outstanding are... the most since 1960 lol.

Btw early boomers had a generational opportunity if they had bought before the insane late 70s inflation, to basically get their debt wiped out by it if they had locked lower rates before.

Mortgage rates were 7% in 1971-72, 16% in 1981. Real salaries were stagnant in the 70s though, it was rough.

But anyway yes nut nut as usually is objectively wrong about major elements of his narratives, housing is atomized among the population right now and a growing number of households own their house with no debt.

Not that that solves anything. 55% of italian households own their own apartment without a mortgage. Doesn't look like that makes people stop complaining every day about everything anyway

Oops, you're not the person I asked.

But anyway, I'm talking about the oldest group, who wouldn't have a large mortgage and would be selling their home to buy a smaller one or rent.

Sure, but most posts aren't complaining about something that is the fault of the poster and that he could help fix.

I don't know him personally, but I know of people like him. If he tells me that he gave away his house, I will change my mind and pat him on the back.

It's Mortgage Share of household debt.

Mostly that affected how much home people got, not that they got one.

Up from the historical lows in the 2000s. Over the last 50 years it's hovered around 35%, which is still down from the +50% in the 50s.

55% compared to 40% in the US. But that's in the broader context of higher home ownership in general in Italy, 75% compared to 65% in the US.

But there are a lot of factors comparing countries. For instance, China has a +90% home ownership, with 70% of millennials owning a home compared to 50% in the US.

The problem with that is it's not true. The 2 party share of eligible voters under 30 hit hit all time highs in 2020 and 2024 in the post civil rights low barrier to registration era.

Yeah, i agree and they would certainly be in a much better spot. After looking, something like 40% of 60 year olds still carry a mortgage and that number is going up, while its obvbiously going to be less than younger people, a lot of people at all ages draw money from their house dor all kinds of reasons. I think the rates matter quite a bit in moving.

I find it humorous that people are criticizing me without commenting whatsoever on the points I am making.

According to this article we're on a trajectory to have non-occupants owning 40% of single family homes in America.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html?msockid=133f693f494766401409664148c367c0

CNBC

Wall Street has purchased hundreds of thousands of single-family homes since the Great Recession. Here's what that means for rental prices

There are a few left leaning Democrats in Congress who have proposed legislation to stop this.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-cong...

If you think feudal concentration of wealth in America, including commoditized ownership of residential real estate is a good thing for the social fabric ..... stand up and say that.

by Nut Nut m

I find it humorous that people are criticizing me without commenting whatsoever on the points I am making.According to this article we're on a trajectory to have non-occupants owning 40% of single family homes in America.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html?msockid=133f693f494766401409664148c367c0

CNBC

Wall Street has purchased hundreds of thousands of single-family homes since the Great Recession. Here's what that means for rental prices

There are a f... See full post

40% of households renting, especially in a country where a lot of households are immigrants, is... low? feudalism is 90%+ renting ffs.

I think people who aren't at the very least median (for the area) income stably for years shouldn't be able to buy a house, especially in good areas.

You want a world where someone with a normal salary living 5 or 7 years in the most expensive countries in the nation is able to buy... that's simply absurd on it's face. If they accept serious compromises and accept to live in very mediocre areas then yes ofc. But there... they can buy easily.

It is not feudalism to say that only people that make dramatically more moeny than normal ones should be able to buy a house in new york. It would be feudalism to claim that should be the norm *everywhere*.

What's the matter with you Lucifer ? Cat got your tongue ?

Stop deflecting.

Is it a good thing that a rich person can own 1,000 single family homes or not ?

In your ideal (and hopefully stable) society, is there a wide distribution of home ownership or a highly concentrated distribution of home ownership ?

The point is not the ability to buy "a house". It's the unlimited ability to buy as many houses as you please and charge as much for rent as you please.

Is there any better evidence that people are ashamed of the reality that I am point out that they can't even speak to it ?

All I see is deflection.

Where are the people who can proudly say that they prefer a system which

a) only concentrates wealth in fewer and fewer hands
b) is indifferent to the survival of a growing percentage of the population which has
c) historically led to deadly revolution

It's good that there is a market for assets yes. If a very rich person wants to own 1000 houses there isn't a problem per se.

It would be bad if housing in desirable areas was structurally lacking, like it growingly is in the USA. That's obviously a regulatory problem, not a "feudal" one. Just let anyone build whatever he wants no question asked on his land and the problem is fixed.

In my ideal society, there is the home ownership rate *people want to have*. I don't plan the economy of a society, and i abhor people who do, i want to create a framework where individual preferences in the market are what determine what society is.

Whatever the market ends up to be *without violent state intervetions to block the market*, is the best possible arrangement for that specific society at that time. There is no "inherent" best answer, and thinking there is, is monstrous.

If people prefer to rent in super-expensive areas rather than buy in cheaper ones, it's their choice. What shouldn't follow from that though is a tirade about the idea it's "feudal" when they literally could own their own house, just elsewhere.

A Tale of Two Boomer Households:

Model 1: Saver Boomers
Born: 1945
Median income
Bought median home: 1970 for ~$23,400
Had 2 kids: 1970s
Began saving 10% of income: 1995 (when kids turned 25)
Savings invested at 6% annual return
Died: 2025

Outcome:
Home value in 2025: ~$263,400
Savings accumulated: ~$418,600
Total estate value: ~$682,000
Inheritance per child: $341,000

Model 2: Spender Boomers
Same timeline, income and home purchase
Did not save
Refinanced home repeatedly, leaving only 50% equity by 2025

Outcome:
Home value in 2025: ~$263,400
Remaining equity: ~$131,700
Total estate value: ~$131,700
Inheritance per child: $65,850

Now ask yourself: how are each couple’s kids doing today if they adopted the same saving or spending behavior as their parents?

If the saver’s kids bought a modest home in the ’90s and waited until their own kids turned 25 to start saving - just like their parents - they’d still end up with a paid-off home, growing savings and a six-figure inheritance. They’re not rich, but they’re secure and their kids are starting life with a nice privileged financial cushion.

Meanwhile, the spender’s kids followed the same path: no saving, living off refinances, draining equity year after year. They’re 55 now, still paying off a mortgage on a house they technically own half of (maybe) and they inherited enough to pay down their credit cards and take a vacation.

Same country. Same income. Same opportunities. Very different outcomes.

So the problem isn’t just the ability to own 1,000 houses; it’s that the system allows someone to sink themselves and their children financially with just one.

I have a problem with a system which makes the future of a young person dependent upon their parent's decisions.

I didn't get **** from my parents. But I went to college for less than $5k / year in the early 80's and that included tuition, room, food, books ...... that was the entire cost of living and school.

I graduated and had five job offers of $20k plus per year.

A single year's starting salary was enough to pay for 4 years at a highly ranked state university !!!

Today, the same university and living expense comes to $40-$45k / year.

The cost of school has increased by 10x while the starting salary has increased by 3x.

I was able to own a home in my 20's with zero parental assistance.

When the mountain becomes too steep for too many, society collapses. We're watching it happen right now.

Nut nut if you have a problem with families existing and providing advantages to their members you won't win.

Many people tried and they lost every time.

Even after absolute revolutions that expropriated everything, the same family names re appeared at the top because intangible capital (and inheritable talents) can't get expropriated.

Yes education costs are very high in ma y places today. Ofc people shouldn't go to the 40k+/year college unless they are dramatically smarter than average and pursuing highly paying careers or if they are rich family wise.

But people do stupid things.

And that can happen only because of leftism. There should be no federal student loan guarantee for average people pursuing average college degrees and spending 40k before room and board per year, simple as that.

It's horrific what leftism did to education, but that's what you have to fix if you want lower costs. Stop subsidizing choices you wouldn't suggest to a kid if you were the father and the kid had to pay out of pocket

Are you OK with government subsidies for rich people to buy residential real estate above and beyond their primary residence ?

That's what interest and depreciation deductions embedded in the Internal Revenue Code are ..... subsidies for the wealthy.

Do you approve of that kind of government intervention ?

Edit: If you're against socialism ... it stands to reason that you are against socialism for the rich. right ?

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3928

poll

63% Of Voters Disapprove Of The Trump Administration's Handling Of The Jeffrey Epstein Files,
Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds;
Nearly Half Of Voters Would Consider Joining A Third Party, Just Not One Created By Elon Musk | Quinnipiac University Poll

Polling for Democrats in Congress reach all-time lows according to latest Quinnipiac survey

19% approval, 72% disapproval

Even under water among Democratic voters

Correct me if I'm wrong Lucifer, but I think this may be the place where we encounter some cognitive dissonance in people who have been brainwashed in a particular fashion.

They are brainwashed by the compulsive wealth aggregators who own the media to believe that socialism is evil as it pertains to helping the poor.

But they are completely silent about the socialism they have instituted for themselves.

The decision for the federal govt to subsidize the concentration of wealth is socialism !!! Wealth aggregators get massive tax breaks for investing in real estate. Wealth aggregators own every single aspect of the national identity. It is the national religion for gods sake. Environment be damned.

This is where the brainwashing goes tilt and says I can't cope with the trauma of the cognitive dissonance.

We are in the grip of a serious and monstrous disease. It's insatiable wealth accumulation which has gone metastatic. This disease respects no boundaries and steamrolls everything in its path. We just removed Medicaid benefits from over 10M people. That's a symbol of something vicious afoot.

We are entering a dark era in human history. These dark episodes reveal a part of our nature that we don't necessarily talk about in polite company. That desperate and extreme part of human nature that conceived of and executed mass exterminations of millions of their fellow humans. That part of our nature hasn't disappeared.

The question we need to ask ourselves is the optimal relationship attitude toward our fellow humans. Do you want to look at all of humanity as one big cooperative tribe or do you want to sort people by tribal identity which defines whether they are friend or foe. Do you want to dehumanize them like the poor in Gaza in order to justify the horrific consequences they will encounter ? Oh ... just abstract poor people in poor countries, who cares ?

I don't see it written into any religious text or constitution that we humans must be foes. There is no physical science which presents us from cooperating as a globally united team. We have the theoretical capacity to improve.

Some of you grinches ought to do a personal experiment in wishing for the best for every damn human being on the planet. It doesn't cost anything to wish others well. The grinch's heart grew 3 sizes, remember ? Caring and connecting made him happier ...... not all the **** that he stole from the Who's.

Okay, but in the early 80s society spent about $2K per k-12 student per year. Today it’s $18K. Same ballpark increase as college, just publicly funded and amortized over your working life through taxes. Plus, while it might not seem like your parents or society did **** for you, combined and factoring the total costs of getting you to adulthood and into college was probably around $100K in 80s dollars. Same with kids today. By the time they get to college close to half a million dollars has been invested in them. So aside from giving more equal opportunities I don't see how socialism would change any of that.

I’m not arguing against your point about tax policy. I just don’t think it was more than a minor factor for most people. But you made the claim you can back it up.

What I’m saying is that the real driver of the generational gap in housing affordability isn’t taxes it’s monetary policy. Once we went off the gold standard in the early ’70s - just as the first Boomers were entering the economy - the money supply expanded massively and with it came the rise of easy credit, asset inflation, and housing prices that far outpaced wage growth.

My claim: If we’d stayed on the gold standard, housing prices today would be about half of what they are now and so would the Consumer Price Index. And by extension, if consumers had chosen to continue behaving financially as they did under the gold standard, both housing prices and the CPI would likely be about half of what they are today.

I suppose that's a small victory. You conceded a point.

The only people who get a depreciation deduction are investors. Home owners don't get that.

The only people who get an unlimited interest deduction are investors. Home owners only get to deduct the amount above their standard deduction.

So ... it seems that there is no dispute that the tax code codifies socialism for rich people.

Before we move on to trying to quantify the impact of that rich people socialism .... let's pause and see who agrees or disagrees with that socialism in principle. It would be really nice for all of the kneejerk principled anti-socialists like Lucifer to weigh in on that.

I'm a millennial.

Do you think most people today want to take a Delorean back to 1955 to live the boomer days instead of what they have now?

You white liberals probably won't budge and I can assure you that your black and female colleagues definitely will give that ride the middle finger - despite their dollar going a bit further (which you're not even as correct as you think). Nostalgia wears rose tinted glasses.

But I think your starting point isn't from a political standpoint - especially when you mention your limited ideas for how to solve them in practice, because constant blame for others is going to foster resentment and alienation. It deepens generational divides and it makes the ability to understand others a pretty much an impossible task. It also destroys mental health and your side isn't exactly winning awards on that particular front.

You're an expert on blame, but I'd prefer that you give some solutions. So far the best is a rambling wall of philosophical horse **** that doesn't work in real life.

I think you're up to about 7 threads now blaming your own people for the problems that you have. That isn't the way to either improve yourself or the world. I can assure you of that.

What are your suggestions?

I'm not an expert on "blame" .... I am just pointing to cause and effect.

Boomers are no more selfish than any one generation of people. The malignancy of their selfishness was able to be manifest only by a condition they did not control. They didn't choose to be the giant population bubble which warped American politics nor did they choose to be born into the easiest time and place to accumulate wealth in human history. Their dominance was innate, not something which is a reflection of character.

Their stubbornness in recognizing our privilege or denying it altogether ... I suppose you could try to make a character issue of that. Most of us prefer the more lofty and virtuous versions of ourselves .... not the ones in which we're just normal and average. We're obsessive about ranking ourselves against some hypothetical standard to validate the reason for our existence in a competitive world.

None of us are good or bad. We're all just trying to survive.

You want a solution ....

1) ask for a single global government entity that has the authority to regulate toxic waste and have sovereign constitutions all agree on the supremacy of a toxic waste regulator with respect to that topic only.

2) Make FDR's proposed 2nd bill of rights from 1944 the law of the land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

en

Second Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

Make survival needs, education and proactive health care like dental, vision and hearing aids a form of UBI for all people. People who can work will need to work.

3) Restructure our economy to fit within the constraints of our natural resources.

This means letting go of a lot of things which are completely unnecessary. We don't need Coca-Cola in plastic bottles. We don't need Fritos in plastic packaging. We don't need carbon intensive recreational activities like jet travel or water skiing. We need to live with the atmospheric boundaries conducive to a stable civilization free from a global evironmental crisis.

People will find useful work. In agriculture. In enhanced locally sufficient economies. In education. In health care. In environmental restoration. We'll need biologists and forestry experts. We'll need R&D to figure out how to tackle challenges. We'll need mass transit workers. We'll need construction experts who can figure out how to harden infrastructure against increasingly severe weather. There will be plenty of work to be done.

We need to declare WW3 against a toxic way of life. We need the same level of togetherness and community we displayed as a country 80 years ago during WW2. That's the level of effort it's going to take to survive. And nothing has ever topped survival as a motivator for human behavior.

Boomers have lived bubbled off from widespread global crisis. We had the two energy crises of the 70's with OPEC, oil price hikes and stagflation. We had the subprime mortgage bubble burst in the 2000's .... but those pale in comparison to the hardships of a Great Depression and World War. We can't imagine it happening to us.

4) We need to embrace democratic communism. Now that we have internet, we don't need a House of Representatives which originally rode on horseback to meet in a remote location to represent us on everything. With technology, more of us can participate and we can certainly vote on more issues. We need take away the obvious incentive for a small group of people to be bribed. Our Congress has a 20% approval rating. We need to chuck it. We can have very secure elections online with blockchain.

That's a start for solutions.

Will people kick and scream about their liberties to do whatever the hell they want without regard to the wellness of our species ??? Hell yeah.

The people who want their offspring to survive have to compete with those people. They have to say that they want their kids to survive more than some wealthy Boomer wants to fly to Paris.

It's all about who wants it more.

Commensurate with an urgency level equivalent to a world war, there will be something equivalent to a draft.

In World War 2, we needed an army to fight and people were drafted into service. A world war is a socialist undertaking.

The US did a wonderful job of synchronizing capitalist energy into a larger socialist war framework, but it was also competing against capitalists who participated in the armament of our adversaries.

If there is a need for people to nurture bee colonies in order to provide a safety net of pollinators and not enough people volunteer for that kind of job, then some people aren't going to get their first choice of work. There would be a draft to fill necessary positions.