Millennials: Avocados or homes?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Speaking of housing, property, and how the different generations fit in to the bigger picture, what do people think is going to happen in 15 years?

I mean, right now, boomers are, at the youngest, 57 years old. The oldest of the bunch is 74 years old.

In 15 years, they will end up being 72-89 years old. Will they still be as involved in the owning of property, the upkeep of homes, and all it entails? Would it perhaps not behoove the Millennials to wait for 10-15 years? I mean, what would the market look like then?

What will the market then look like for all of us?

This is something I'm wondering as well. For all of those boomers who are sitting on big houses in the suburbs, happily thinking they'll cash-in when they downsize, who do they think is going to be buying these homes? Millennials are living in the cities and having smaller numbers of kids or no kids at all.

I kinda think more than a few are going to end up taking a bath on houses, or at least taking less than they were expecting, when the time comes to sell.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is something I'm wondering as well. For all of those boomers who are sitting on big houses in the suburbs, happily thinking they'll cash-in when they downsize, who do they think is going to be buying these homes? Millennials are living in the cities and having smaller numbers of kids or no kids at all.

I kinda think more than a few are going to end up taking a bath on houses, or at least taking less than they were expecting, when the time comes to sell.

Well it's a good thing they'll have all those super awesome savings to retire on and won't need to rely on the sales from their inflated home prices. As they don't eat frivolous avocado there shouldn't be any problems at all.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is something I'm wondering as well. For all of those boomers who are sitting on big houses in the suburbs, happily thinking they'll cash-in when they downsize, who do they think is going to be buying these homes? Millennials are living in the cities and having smaller numbers of kids or no kids at all.

I kinda think more than a few are going to end up taking a bath on houses, or at least taking less than they were expecting, when the time comes to sell.

The entire property market is going to be in major flux in 15 years. Suburbs are going to take a major hit, I would guess. A good question is what is going to happen to inner city homes - they likely will still do well, but not entirely sure. I think it would be a market by market response.

The condo market is interesting as well. Will we see a number of Gen-X ers are going to find themselves inheriting condos that were being used as investment property, or will the boomers themselves finally move into those condos? Will we see a great swap, where the Millennials living in those condos will move to the now cheap suburbs that the Boomers are fleeing - for the condos that the Millennials are being kicked out of? That would be my guess - and I actually think that the swap might also result in a massive re-distribution of wealth at the same time, but I don't know, Boomers have done a great job in ensuring that they have always come out ahead.

In addition, the recreational property market will be very interesting as well, there will be a lot of shake-up in cottage properties. Many of the kids will have issues with splitting the property, and instead will sell. Others will want to travel more instead, and not want to hold and maintain an expensive out of town property.

There are going to be a lot of moving parts going forward. The real trick is to try to figure out what different directions the market might go, so we can understand it better when it starts happening.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is something I'm wondering as well. For all of those boomers who are sitting on big houses in the suburbs, happily thinking they'll cash-in when they downsize, who do they think is going to be buying these homes? Millennials are living in the cities and having smaller numbers of kids or no kids at all.

Things change. Looking at my group of friends when we were 28, we all lived in the inner city or beltline. None of us had kids. We all would have laughed if you suggested we'd ever live in the suburbs.

Flash-forward 10 years. We all had kids. We all lived in the suburbs.

Millennials are having fewer children than Gen Xers, but 10 per cent fewer, not 50 per cent fewer.

I was talking to a younger couple at a BBQ last weekend. They were about 30 and had moved from a downtown condo to a small house in the near south a couple years ago so they could have more space. The woman, who was pregnant, was going on about the huge house her friend had just bought in McKenzie for the same amount they had paid for their small house in the near south. I give it three years before they move to the outer burbs.

Originally Posted by Knalus

The entire property market is going to be in major flux in 15 years. Suburbs are going to take a major hit, I would guess. A good question is what is going to happen to inner city homes - they likely will still do well, but not entirely sure. I think it would be a market by market response.

See above. Millennials will be like everyone else - once they have kids, the siren call of the suburbs will beckon.

And Canada will do what it's been doing for 30 years to prop up the real estate market and stop the country from falling off a demographic cliff - increase immigration. A key driver of the housing crunch is the overwhelming majority of immigrants to Canada want and expect to live in a detached home. It's an essential part of their dream, and they're willing to make tremendous sacrifices in order to achieve it.

[Jason14h]

We will all be in 10x10 boxes with our VR helmets on projecting a mansion.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

See above. Millennials will be like everyone else - once they have kids, the siren call of the suburbs will beckon.

We have a coworker who used to live downtown and a 2 minute commute. Got married and started having kids. She/they basically dragged him out to Fish Creek, then McKenzie Towne, and he now commutes in from High River. We joke that he'll be in Mexico by the end of the decade.

He's also given up on life and capitulated to the despair of being chained to the mini-van now.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by chemgear

We have a coworker who used to live downtown and a 2 minute commute. Got married and started having kids. She/they basically dragged him out to Fish Creek, then McKenzie Towne, and he now commutes in from High River. We joke that he'll be in Mexico by the end of the decade.

He's also given up on life and capitulated to the despair of being chained to the mini-van now.

Well that is just how life changes though. The idea that millenials are so different from the prior generations is just romanticised. I know that technology and lifestyle to some extent will change how life is lived, but at the same time there are things about life that really doesn't change.

I think the minivan is a perfect illustration in a lot of ways. I know that a lot of people hate them and refuse to drive one. Then one day you have a kid or two and the sliding door and spacious interior is just plain great. So yeah, when you're young and single with no kids it's not something that you want to drive. But your needs change and suddenly minvans and proximity to parks and schools is as important as nightlife and fun patios once were.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well that is just how life changes though. The idea that millenials are so different from the prior generations is just romanticised. I know that technology and lifestyle to some extent will change how life is lived, but at the same time there are things about life that really doesn't change.

I think the minivan is a perfect illustration in a lot of ways. I know that a lot of people hate them and refuse to drive one. Then one day you have a kid or two and the sliding door and spacious interior is just plain great. So yeah, when you're young and single with no kids it's not something that you want to drive. But your needs change and suddenly minvans and proximity to parks and schools is as important as nightlife and fun patios once were.

Escalades and Suburbans are also quite spacious

[Locke]

I have a home and Avocados. My opulence knows no bounds.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I mentioned before, trips is the big one. Of the links above, the non-students are spending $2-3000 per year on trips.

Our parents never took trips every year, and I don't think they took many trips before they were married.

I am 34 now and at the leading edge of the millennial demographic.

We traveled a ton in out 20's as per the article and I have absolutely no regrets. After graduating university at 22 I would guess that we budgeted at least $12,000 a year for vacations. We lived below our means during the year and then went all out travelling.
Now I have a child and the appeal of travelling internationally is less appealing. I figured as much and didn't want to wait until my 50's to see the world.

I think the travel spend of millennials is mostly related to the delay having kids.

[GP_Matt]

When does the minivan urge kick in? I have a 16 month old, currently live near downtown, drive a truck and my wife has a small 4-door car. I keep thinking about going down to one vehicle though.

Should I start looking at minivans and houses in the burbs now or will I know when the time comes? Is there any way to avoid it? I really don't want a long commute every day.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

When does the minivan urge kick in? I have a 16 month old, currently live near downtown, drive a truck and my wife has a small 4-door car. I keep thinking about going down to one vehicle though.

Should I start looking at minivans and houses in the burbs now or will I know when the time comes? Is there any way to avoid it? I really don't want a long commute every day.

You can get a similarly priced house in the innerish city(think Thorncliff south, or between Sarcee and downtown) as you would pay at the edge of the city. The sacrifice is the house is smaller and older. But you can find lots of big yards. Commute by bike is not hard form those distances. If you don't want the long commute, there are alternatives.

Nothing wrong with a minivan either! Think of it as a truck with a permanent cap. Great for moving things.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

When does the minivan urge kick in? I have a 16 month old, currently live near downtown, drive a truck and my wife has a small 4-door car. I keep thinking about going down to one vehicle though.

Should I start looking at minivans and houses in the burbs now or will I know when the time comes? Is there any way to avoid it? I really don't want a long commute every day.

From what I've seen, as soon as you have multiple kids, need multiple strollers, diaper bags, etc...people hop on the minivan plan pretty quickly.


I have another friend who avoided the mini van and got an SUV with leather interior...which is now covered in kids toys and slime.

I actually drove a Town and Country on our last road trip down to Portland. It was actually a pretty great driving experience. I didn't have kids in the back, but 4 large drunk men. We probably had a similar number of bathroom requests and it was challenging keeping everyone's hands inside the van.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You can get a similarly priced house in the innerish city(think Thorncliff south, or between Sarcee and downtown) as you would pay at the edge of the city. The sacrifice is the house is smaller and older. But you can find lots of big yards. Commute by bike is not hard form those distances. If you don't want the long commute, their are alternatives.

Nothing wrong with a minivan either! Think of it as a truck with a permanent cap. Great for moving things.

Plus if the whole 'wife and kids' thing doesnt go according to plan you can also live in it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Things change. Looking at my group of friends when we were 28, we all lived in the inner city or beltline. None of us had kids. We all would have laughed if you suggested we'd ever live in the suburbs.

Flash-forward 10 years. We all had kids. We all lived in the suburbs.

Millennials are having fewer children than Gen Xers, but 10 per cent fewer, not 50 per cent fewer.

I was talking to a younger couple at a BBQ last weekend. They were about 30 and had moved from a downtown condo to a small house in the near south a couple years ago so they could have more space. The woman, who was pregnant, was going on about the huge house her friend had just bought in McKenzie for the same amount they had paid for their small house in the near south. I give it three years before they move to the outer burbs.

Cool anecdotes, bro. Unfortunately the stats don't back them up. The number of women who aren't having children continues to climb to record highs every year and that's accounting for age as well. Roughly 1 in 5 women are reaching their mid-40s without having had children (double the amount of the previous generation). That number is expected to continue to rise (and yes I have sources if you want them).

I'm not sure why people continue to bury their heads in the sand and tell themselves that each generation is the same as the generations that came before them. Is it somehow more comforting or something? We're seeing this trend occur in Japan and across the more secular countries in Europe. Why would we expect it to be any different in Canada?

And Canada will do what it's been doing for 30 years to prop up the real estate market and stop the country from falling off a demographic cliff - increase immigration. A key driver of the housing crunch is the overwhelming majority of immigrants to Canada want and expect to live in a detached home. It's an essential part of their dream, and they're willing to make tremendous sacrifices in order to achieve it.

You're making a number of pretty huge assumptions there that a) those countries won't develop to a point where migration becomes less desirable, b) birth rates in those countries also won't decrease as they become more developed and influenced by secular globalization, and c) that Canadian attitudes towards immigration won't change over time.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Cool anecdotes, bro. Unfortunately the stats don't back them up. The number of women who aren't having children continues to climb to record highs every year and that's accounting for age as well. Roughly 1 in 5 women are reaching their mid-40s without having had children (double the amount of the previous generation). That number is expected to continue to rise (and yes I have sources if you want them).

I'm not sure why people continue to bury their heads in the sand and tell themselves that each generation is the same as the generations that came before them. Is it somehow more comforting or something? We're seeing this trend occur in Japan and across the more secular countries in Europe. Why would we expect it to be any different in Canada?



You're making a number of pretty huge assumptions there that a) those countries won't develop to a point where migration becomes less desirable, b) birth rates in those countries also won't decrease as they become more developed and influenced by secular globalization, and c) that Canadian attitudes towards immigration won't change over time.

I think it's an issue of avoiding guilt. Instead of saying "hey the babyboomers have royally f-ed things up.", they try to pretend like nothing is going on. They enjoy their increased property values and the lines of credit they are taking from them. They don't stop to think about the social costs. It's the worst of capitalism and entitlement.

[shermanator]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I am 34 now and at the leading edge of the millennial demographic.

We traveled a ton in out 20's as per the article and I have absolutely no regrets. After graduating university at 22 I would guess that we budgeted at least $12,000 a year for vacations. We lived below our means during the year and then went all out travelling.
Now I have a child and the appeal of travelling internationally is less appealing. I figured as much and didn't want to wait until my 50's to see the world.

I think the travel spend of millennials is mostly related to the delay having kids.

I'm the same age, and have the same line of thinking here. When I was younger, and didn't have the money to travel, I didn't. Now that I'm a little more established, and have more income coming in, I'm enjoying that luxury for a few years before a snot nosed kid ruins my bank account for 20-25 years.

I pinch pennies year round to be able to afford a couple weeks overseas. Once I have kids, I don't think the idea of travel will be appealing to me, unless I want to go to Disneyland (which I do not). Then when said kids are older, I can pick up the traveling where I left off.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not sure why people continue to bury their heads in the sand and tell themselves that each generation is the same as the generations that came before them. Is it somehow more comforting or something? We're seeing this trend occur in Japan and across the more secular countries in Europe. Why would we expect it to be any different in Canada?

Generations do change. Gradually. Most 25 year olds in Canada are going to get married, have kids, and move to the suburbs. As many as did 40 years ago? No. But still most.

Every generation believes they're unique, that the world will change when they reach their full maturity. The term 'generation gap' was coined in the 60s. Boomers did grow up to be different from their parents. Somewhat. But not dramatically. Those hippies and campus radicals who were going to overturn the system got married, worked for the man, moved to the burbs, and had kids.

Women today are waiting longer to have kids and they're having fewer of them. But most will still be parents at some point in their life. More people are buying condos, but detached homes still make up the largest housing category by far. New sub-divisions are still being built on the perimeter of every city in the country.

[Kiran403]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

When does the minivan urge kick in? I have a 16 month old, currently live near downtown, drive a truck and my wife has a small 4-door car. I keep thinking about going down to one vehicle though.

Should I start looking at minivans and houses in the burbs now or will I know when the time comes? Is there any way to avoid it? I really don't want a long commute every day.

IMO if you have 2 kids or less, you don't need a minivan. There is definitely enough space to fit diaper bags and strollers, especially if you have the stroller with the removable extra seat.

[Kybosh]

I don't have kids and I think minivans are amazing. You can fit entire sheets of drywall in them. Like, c'mon.