Comment from a friend: "How about these RE/PE firms ringing the bell opening the markets like they're superheroes for buying 50,000 single family homes sight unseen. I'm all about free markets, but it's crazy how those guys are revered when they're doing serious damage to the next generation of men."
There is a lot here to consider, but I think it's helpful to consider how material circumstances and cultural/social incentives interact rather than consider them separately; to that end, here are a couple things to note:
1. Boomers (and to a lesser extent GenX), as the fathers of Millennials, seem to feel absolutely no obligation to help their children out in pretty foundational ways. This includes both economically and also in terms of family formation. Johann Kurtz has written an article about this a bit from the economic angle.
I personally find it disturbing the degree to which these 55+ year old men feel literally absolutely no obligation to invest into some type of family legacy. They would rather give all of their money to their alma mater, or some non-profit, or some stock portfolio, or three more investment properties – which they don't even allow their children to live in!
You would think that these guys would at least buy a house for Kid #1 (and maybe Kid #2, too, since they can clearly afford to) so that they aren't kicked into a retirement home at 80 because sonny boy has seething resentment at not ever getting any help, and also literally can't afford to take care of daddy-o.
Similarly, these fathers play zero role in actually helping their sons find a compatible girl (or in my case, a compatible guy) to hitch themselves to and start popping out grandkids. Where the fuck is all the nihilism toward their own future line coming from? Baffling.
2. Further extending this, the people who already have a ton of wealth and material security seem to have no impetus to use that to build some sort of patronage network that would allows guys to find some meaning and also start building their life.
Ancient Problemz wrote an article about this, essentially pointing out that the wealthy are hogging all the houses and stocks, but they're not even using their power law wealth to create jobs anymore that center male-proclivities. That is, being a Product Manager in Seattle responsible for deploying Amazon's latest audiobook doesn't count; and women are probably better at doing that anyway.
Some of this is the aforementioned nihilism and short-sightedness, but a lot of it is this cultural addiction to a sort of 'market egalitarianism' and and allergy to more aristocratic modes of being: the belief that these lost Millennials and Zoomers need to 'earn their way into market dominance' just like they did.
Even the GenX Facebook manager who has earned $700K for the past ten years and has another $1.2M in unvested stock could just completely quit, move to Wyoming, buy up a hundred acres, hire a bunch of RTLMM to develop it into a sprawling estate (I would sign up for this!) including his own sons; and give the more talented ones the opportunity to become property managers, set up their own research institutions, focus on studying and producing commissioned high art, etc.
3. The Millenials' forefathers – whether biological Boomers or cultural GenXers – have done basically nothing to inculcate any sense of what it means to belong to and contribute to a shared aAmerican project. GenX is not really to blame for this, because they also did not receive any cultural or patriotic continuity from Boomers, so they kind of don't know either what healthy American identity and cohesion looks like.
The military used to be a place that fostered some sort of male-centric camaraderies, and also allowed to you get a decent education and stipend that could eventually be used for a downpayment, if only on a 1200 square foot single family home 1 hours outside of a major metropolis.
However, after the lies of Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan we know better than to sell our souls to an organization that doesn't even fight just causes; and that also wants us to pay ovations to pink haired trannies.
4. Lastly, even the most religiously-fervent, community-oriented, fertile conservative GenX/Millenial fathers who have 'made it' are still deeply lonely and lacking any sort of extended community that can help build a shared culture, which includes attracting guys to into living close by, and helping them get on their feet.
Someone like my friend Michael Perrone is deeply trying to be the type of far-thinking, legacy-building aristocrat that I emphasize above, and he is finding it to a be a slow, arduous process with very little external support or interest, no guidelines, and active pushback from both material and cultural forces.
I have a call to get to right now, so I'm going to leave it there for now. From a personal standpoint, even if found my Prince Charming tomorrow and liquidated my whole retirement account, it's not clear that we'd be in a position to buy or build a property in a good location and find opportunities to move forward with a family, good career, etc.
What a generous and insightful comment, Rajeev. There's a ton here to consider that I intend to dig into (and I wouldn't be surprised if it leads me to my next essay topic). I particularly like your points about older men leaving legacies and how to create a culture of continuity and support. Thank you.
I would argue that housing was traditionally the way that heterosexual couples felt literally invested in their future together, as shared partners supporting each other’s well being. Obviously, that was an ideal, and it often wasn’t like that. The ideal of the family home could be downright dangerous, especially for women. But at its best, home ownership created a sense of stability and permanence that supported relationships, families, and communities over the long haul. I think that’s the most salient factor, and the essence of why housing dispossession has been so devastating for so many.
Your last two sentences really nail it for me. Also, I agree it's a couples issue as well as — or even more than — and individual one. That's useful to keep in mind, even with my focus on men. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Mmmm. Have to say this one doesn't really speak to me. This might be true for some "young Millennial men" (aren't the first two words a tautology), and in some parts of the world, but it doesn't feel true for Remarkably Talented Late Millennial Male which is who you explicitly address the first article to. N.B. you're switching between young and late millennials in your articles and I'm not sure it's intentional?
I guess this depends on what remarkably talented means. Me and my friends live in and around a very expensive city, but none of us ever talks about housing costs or any other costs. We can all easily afford whatever kind of place we want to live in. Those of us who still live in the city in apartments are doing so because we choose to do so (or in my case because my wife loves city life, I'd be OK with moving to a bigger place in the countryside).
I would identify many (not all) of the men in my circle as remarkably talented. Part of why it's remarkable is exactly because they earn lots of money quite easily, unless they choose not to by creating companies. If you feel you fall into that category and yet your biggest stress is income, why is that? There are of course many professions and life roles where you can be remarkably talented yet still too poor to buy a house. Art, maybe some kinds of manual labor (though increasingly not the case, skilled labor can earn a lot). But are there really so many men in those professions. I think usually not.
Parents best gift to their children is no longer an expensive education, if it ever was, but guidance toward a sustainable career requiring little or no education debt, and assistance in buying their first home. Down payment assistance in the form of joint investment is an excellent way to go without putting additional debt on the young man; hopefully soon to be young family. If we want different outcomes, we are going to have to develop different inputs.
I live in North Metro Atlanta and renovate starter homes. It is possible to buy a sound home for $200-250k and put sweat equity into it while living in the home. That equates to a mortgage under $2k/mo, about what an apartment runs. Dad invests 10% into the down payment and the numbers are even better. This is not hard.
Thanks Jason. That's a good point about the value of a downpayment gift for young people. Glad to know the real estate market isn't as crazy in your North Metro Atlanta as it seems to be in the places where I spend time.
My parents purchased a $50k house ($250k in today’s money) in small town Ontario in the mid 70s and recently sold it to a young family for more than $500k. Not ideal for young families but the economics for young families there can work.
They don’t work, however, for young professionals in large cities. Here in Toronto we see starting salaries for university grads around $50k, but you have to factor in student loans and rent. So basically if you play all of your cards right and have two incomes you may be able to start a family in a cookie cutter townhouse or small home in a remote suburb. You also see older parents everywhere in our reasonably prosperous suburb.
I’m sure this is part of the problem. Another issue is that, if you don’t play your cards completely right, you’re screwed. So if you get into too much student debt, or don’t start saving for a down payment straight out of school, or struggle getting a good job for a couple of years, you may not be able to come back.
You also can’t come back easily from a divorce- many boomers have one under their belt and survived, but for younger men it can be life destroying, especially if kids are involved.
Although moving can be a financial solution, it creates problems in terms of a lack of help (child care, help around the house, etc). It also prevents you from living at home and saving money. So it’s only a partial solution.
These are all great points — the city versus small town and also how little slack there is for divorce etc. I've heard the affordability crisis in Candian cities is even worse than it is in the U.S. Sigh...
Yes it is bad in Canada. Skyrocketing immigration, high taxes and government regulations, restrictions on development… all contribute to low affordability.
What is striking is how it just spread across the country. First it was just Vancouver, then Toronto, and now it has spread across the country. It doesn’t get better.
I don't disagree with the problem you're pointing out, I'd say it's the single most important policy issue in America, and by an extremely large margin.
However, I worry that your goal of increasing home ownership is actually what makes home ownership so difficult. Specifically, NIMBYism is primarily driven by rent-seeking behavior. The reason we have a quasi-command economy in housing is because artificial limitations on building housing creates artificial scarcity, and artificial scarcity drives up prices.
All home owners benefit from artificial scarcity. The more home owners you have, the more demand you have for increasingly limiting the supply of housing.
I think you are correct in pointing out that men want to feel like they are a provider and that home ownership can help fulfill that, but it cannot be our solution because homeowners do not want more housing. Instead, I think we need to destigmatize renting and highlight it's benefits, while also fighting against NIMBYism. For example, as a renter, part of its appeal is the independence and autonomy it allows me. If I need to relocate, I can do so with much greater ease. I am not a slave to interest rates, and my retirement doesn't depend on begging the state on my knees to allow me to continue to act as a paradise by artificially inflating housing prices. These are just a few examples off the top of my head, so we could probably come up with better ones.
"Politically, young men could be much more loud and aggressive in demanding actions on housing affordability."
There's that graphic about how Boomers have, 2022, 64.6% of all national wealth. Millenials are at 6.5%. This is important because wealth, in the USA, is your political power. Whenever Millenials voice their opinions they get crushed by every institution in America. You get blacked out on the media, you get kicked out of university and thus all future employment, you get blacklisted by employers, you lose your credit and thus spending power with seed capital, and they are now de-banking Millenials who dare to have opinions. Literally shut out of the ability to have a livelihood outside of crime. Thanks Baby Boomers! That's you. That's all you. Let none gainsay that, if any Baby Boomer disagrees lower your tone around me.
Occupy Wall Street was the last time Millenials believed peaceful protest could work because the hypocritical Boomers just kettled them all into a panic and injected CIA military grade divide and conquer racial and sexual divides into the movement.
Because institutional change is impossible the only option is to literally wait until enough Baby Boomers die that they lose by default. Millenials can't protest or they get crushed, they can't form large replacement-capable alternate institutions because Boomers made it so you need to have a nobility patron Bank behind you which they all control, they can't form free associations because of intense selectively enforced regulations. Canada is even making it so you can't leave because you have to pay too much money, CA is trying to pass an exit tax and the USA taxes you even if you move abroad without renouncing your citizenship. Those actions, btw, show that Boomers know their system is foul and people want to leave. They know. They continue to do evil nonetheless.
Comment from a friend: "How about these RE/PE firms ringing the bell opening the markets like they're superheroes for buying 50,000 single family homes sight unseen. I'm all about free markets, but it's crazy how those guys are revered when they're doing serious damage to the next generation of men."
There is a lot here to consider, but I think it's helpful to consider how material circumstances and cultural/social incentives interact rather than consider them separately; to that end, here are a couple things to note:
1. Boomers (and to a lesser extent GenX), as the fathers of Millennials, seem to feel absolutely no obligation to help their children out in pretty foundational ways. This includes both economically and also in terms of family formation. Johann Kurtz has written an article about this a bit from the economic angle.
https://becomingnoble.substack.com/p/an-attack-on-nihilist-die-with-zero
I personally find it disturbing the degree to which these 55+ year old men feel literally absolutely no obligation to invest into some type of family legacy. They would rather give all of their money to their alma mater, or some non-profit, or some stock portfolio, or three more investment properties – which they don't even allow their children to live in!
You would think that these guys would at least buy a house for Kid #1 (and maybe Kid #2, too, since they can clearly afford to) so that they aren't kicked into a retirement home at 80 because sonny boy has seething resentment at not ever getting any help, and also literally can't afford to take care of daddy-o.
Similarly, these fathers play zero role in actually helping their sons find a compatible girl (or in my case, a compatible guy) to hitch themselves to and start popping out grandkids. Where the fuck is all the nihilism toward their own future line coming from? Baffling.
2. Further extending this, the people who already have a ton of wealth and material security seem to have no impetus to use that to build some sort of patronage network that would allows guys to find some meaning and also start building their life.
Ancient Problemz wrote an article about this, essentially pointing out that the wealthy are hogging all the houses and stocks, but they're not even using their power law wealth to create jobs anymore that center male-proclivities. That is, being a Product Manager in Seattle responsible for deploying Amazon's latest audiobook doesn't count; and women are probably better at doing that anyway.
https://ancientproblemz.substack.com/p/you-barely-live-once
Some of this is the aforementioned nihilism and short-sightedness, but a lot of it is this cultural addiction to a sort of 'market egalitarianism' and and allergy to more aristocratic modes of being: the belief that these lost Millennials and Zoomers need to 'earn their way into market dominance' just like they did.
Even the GenX Facebook manager who has earned $700K for the past ten years and has another $1.2M in unvested stock could just completely quit, move to Wyoming, buy up a hundred acres, hire a bunch of RTLMM to develop it into a sprawling estate (I would sign up for this!) including his own sons; and give the more talented ones the opportunity to become property managers, set up their own research institutions, focus on studying and producing commissioned high art, etc.
3. The Millenials' forefathers – whether biological Boomers or cultural GenXers – have done basically nothing to inculcate any sense of what it means to belong to and contribute to a shared aAmerican project. GenX is not really to blame for this, because they also did not receive any cultural or patriotic continuity from Boomers, so they kind of don't know either what healthy American identity and cohesion looks like.
The military used to be a place that fostered some sort of male-centric camaraderies, and also allowed to you get a decent education and stipend that could eventually be used for a downpayment, if only on a 1200 square foot single family home 1 hours outside of a major metropolis.
However, after the lies of Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan we know better than to sell our souls to an organization that doesn't even fight just causes; and that also wants us to pay ovations to pink haired trannies.
https://marcellinodambrosio.substack.com/p/how-to-kill-a-brand-the-us-army
4. Lastly, even the most religiously-fervent, community-oriented, fertile conservative GenX/Millenial fathers who have 'made it' are still deeply lonely and lacking any sort of extended community that can help build a shared culture, which includes attracting guys to into living close by, and helping them get on their feet.
https://mperrone.substack.com/p/conservative-no-more
Someone like my friend Michael Perrone is deeply trying to be the type of far-thinking, legacy-building aristocrat that I emphasize above, and he is finding it to a be a slow, arduous process with very little external support or interest, no guidelines, and active pushback from both material and cultural forces.
I have a call to get to right now, so I'm going to leave it there for now. From a personal standpoint, even if found my Prince Charming tomorrow and liquidated my whole retirement account, it's not clear that we'd be in a position to buy or build a property in a good location and find opportunities to move forward with a family, good career, etc.
What a generous and insightful comment, Rajeev. There's a ton here to consider that I intend to dig into (and I wouldn't be surprised if it leads me to my next essay topic). I particularly like your points about older men leaving legacies and how to create a culture of continuity and support. Thank you.
I would argue that housing was traditionally the way that heterosexual couples felt literally invested in their future together, as shared partners supporting each other’s well being. Obviously, that was an ideal, and it often wasn’t like that. The ideal of the family home could be downright dangerous, especially for women. But at its best, home ownership created a sense of stability and permanence that supported relationships, families, and communities over the long haul. I think that’s the most salient factor, and the essence of why housing dispossession has been so devastating for so many.
Your last two sentences really nail it for me. Also, I agree it's a couples issue as well as — or even more than — and individual one. That's useful to keep in mind, even with my focus on men. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Mmmm. Have to say this one doesn't really speak to me. This might be true for some "young Millennial men" (aren't the first two words a tautology), and in some parts of the world, but it doesn't feel true for Remarkably Talented Late Millennial Male which is who you explicitly address the first article to. N.B. you're switching between young and late millennials in your articles and I'm not sure it's intentional?
I guess this depends on what remarkably talented means. Me and my friends live in and around a very expensive city, but none of us ever talks about housing costs or any other costs. We can all easily afford whatever kind of place we want to live in. Those of us who still live in the city in apartments are doing so because we choose to do so (or in my case because my wife loves city life, I'd be OK with moving to a bigger place in the countryside).
I would identify many (not all) of the men in my circle as remarkably talented. Part of why it's remarkable is exactly because they earn lots of money quite easily, unless they choose not to by creating companies. If you feel you fall into that category and yet your biggest stress is income, why is that? There are of course many professions and life roles where you can be remarkably talented yet still too poor to buy a house. Art, maybe some kinds of manual labor (though increasingly not the case, skilled labor can earn a lot). But are there really so many men in those professions. I think usually not.
This is the kind of article where I'm happy for you if it doesn't speak to you. :)
Parents best gift to their children is no longer an expensive education, if it ever was, but guidance toward a sustainable career requiring little or no education debt, and assistance in buying their first home. Down payment assistance in the form of joint investment is an excellent way to go without putting additional debt on the young man; hopefully soon to be young family. If we want different outcomes, we are going to have to develop different inputs.
I live in North Metro Atlanta and renovate starter homes. It is possible to buy a sound home for $200-250k and put sweat equity into it while living in the home. That equates to a mortgage under $2k/mo, about what an apartment runs. Dad invests 10% into the down payment and the numbers are even better. This is not hard.
Thanks Jason. That's a good point about the value of a downpayment gift for young people. Glad to know the real estate market isn't as crazy in your North Metro Atlanta as it seems to be in the places where I spend time.
My parents purchased a $50k house ($250k in today’s money) in small town Ontario in the mid 70s and recently sold it to a young family for more than $500k. Not ideal for young families but the economics for young families there can work.
They don’t work, however, for young professionals in large cities. Here in Toronto we see starting salaries for university grads around $50k, but you have to factor in student loans and rent. So basically if you play all of your cards right and have two incomes you may be able to start a family in a cookie cutter townhouse or small home in a remote suburb. You also see older parents everywhere in our reasonably prosperous suburb.
I’m sure this is part of the problem. Another issue is that, if you don’t play your cards completely right, you’re screwed. So if you get into too much student debt, or don’t start saving for a down payment straight out of school, or struggle getting a good job for a couple of years, you may not be able to come back.
You also can’t come back easily from a divorce- many boomers have one under their belt and survived, but for younger men it can be life destroying, especially if kids are involved.
Although moving can be a financial solution, it creates problems in terms of a lack of help (child care, help around the house, etc). It also prevents you from living at home and saving money. So it’s only a partial solution.
These are all great points — the city versus small town and also how little slack there is for divorce etc. I've heard the affordability crisis in Candian cities is even worse than it is in the U.S. Sigh...
Yes it is bad in Canada. Skyrocketing immigration, high taxes and government regulations, restrictions on development… all contribute to low affordability.
What is striking is how it just spread across the country. First it was just Vancouver, then Toronto, and now it has spread across the country. It doesn’t get better.
I don't disagree with the problem you're pointing out, I'd say it's the single most important policy issue in America, and by an extremely large margin.
However, I worry that your goal of increasing home ownership is actually what makes home ownership so difficult. Specifically, NIMBYism is primarily driven by rent-seeking behavior. The reason we have a quasi-command economy in housing is because artificial limitations on building housing creates artificial scarcity, and artificial scarcity drives up prices.
All home owners benefit from artificial scarcity. The more home owners you have, the more demand you have for increasingly limiting the supply of housing.
I think you are correct in pointing out that men want to feel like they are a provider and that home ownership can help fulfill that, but it cannot be our solution because homeowners do not want more housing. Instead, I think we need to destigmatize renting and highlight it's benefits, while also fighting against NIMBYism. For example, as a renter, part of its appeal is the independence and autonomy it allows me. If I need to relocate, I can do so with much greater ease. I am not a slave to interest rates, and my retirement doesn't depend on begging the state on my knees to allow me to continue to act as a paradise by artificially inflating housing prices. These are just a few examples off the top of my head, so we could probably come up with better ones.
"Politically, young men could be much more loud and aggressive in demanding actions on housing affordability."
There's that graphic about how Boomers have, 2022, 64.6% of all national wealth. Millenials are at 6.5%. This is important because wealth, in the USA, is your political power. Whenever Millenials voice their opinions they get crushed by every institution in America. You get blacked out on the media, you get kicked out of university and thus all future employment, you get blacklisted by employers, you lose your credit and thus spending power with seed capital, and they are now de-banking Millenials who dare to have opinions. Literally shut out of the ability to have a livelihood outside of crime. Thanks Baby Boomers! That's you. That's all you. Let none gainsay that, if any Baby Boomer disagrees lower your tone around me.
Occupy Wall Street was the last time Millenials believed peaceful protest could work because the hypocritical Boomers just kettled them all into a panic and injected CIA military grade divide and conquer racial and sexual divides into the movement.
Because institutional change is impossible the only option is to literally wait until enough Baby Boomers die that they lose by default. Millenials can't protest or they get crushed, they can't form large replacement-capable alternate institutions because Boomers made it so you need to have a nobility patron Bank behind you which they all control, they can't form free associations because of intense selectively enforced regulations. Canada is even making it so you can't leave because you have to pay too much money, CA is trying to pass an exit tax and the USA taxes you even if you move abroad without renouncing your citizenship. Those actions, btw, show that Boomers know their system is foul and people want to leave. They know. They continue to do evil nonetheless.
Man. I don't know how people do it, especially when they're just starting out.