IBJNews

Study: U.S. millennials buying homes later in life

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Don't blame the millennial generation for lackluster home sales.

They are increasingly ethnically diverse, more educated and less likely to be married — all factors that make them less likely to own a home, said a new report released Wednesday by Trulia, the online real estate firm. After adjusting for these population changes, younger Americans are actually buying homes at the same rate as they did during the late-1990s.

"For at least the past 20 years, there have been significant demographic headwinds for homeownership for young people," said Jed Kolko, chief economist at Trulia.

The analysis suggests that the recession — for all its damage to the economy — did little to turn off millennials from the idea of owning a home compared to previous generations. In fact, the report shows that the major group whose ownership rates suffered because of the downturn is middle-aged Americans.

The easy credit offered during the housing bubble caused more young people to buy than they otherwise would and masked the impact of the demographic changes, according to Trulia. The bursting of that bubble and the resulting recession that began in 2007 then caused ownership to fall where it should be given the demographic shifts. Because a greater percentage of younger Americans are attending college and graduate school, they are settling down a few years later — which causes them to delay buying a home.

Census figures show that the share of 18-34 year-olds who are married is 30 percent, down from 47 percent in 1983. Just 29 percent of them live with children, compared to 39 percent three decades ago. Since more people in the age range are single and childless, Trulia looked at the number of homeowners who are also identified as the head of their households. After adjusting for these population shifts, the share of people under 35-years old who own homes is the same as it was for 1997.

Standard Census data, which aren't adjusted for these factors, show that the ownership rate among those younger than 35 has declined to 36.2 percent from 38.6 percent in 1997. Slightly less than 65 percent of the country owns a home, down from a peak of 69 percent in the middle of 2006.

While the weak economic rebound has affected home buying, Trulia's analysis puts more of an emphasis on demographics than much of the real estate industry has to explain poor sales.

Lawrence Yun, chief economist at the National Association of Realtors, blames the lack of buying among younger people on the sluggish recovery, now entering its sixth year.

"It's principally the economic factors: jobs and student debt," said Yun, noting the difficulty of saving for a down payment when earning modest wages and repaying college loans.

The number of first-time homebuyers in May was near record lows at 27 percent, versus a historic average of 40 percent, the Realtors said last month. Yun says that as the economy continues to bounce back, so, too, will sales to first-time buyers.

By contrast, Trulia found that homeownership really lags among a different age bracket: the middle-aged. After adjusting for demographic changes, it found that their ownership rate was the lowest since 1976, a clear casualty of the housing bust.

That's because many Americans who are now middle-aged bought during the bubble at inflated prices with loans that they could not repay.

"It's the 35-54 year-olds who have fallen further behind," Kolko said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • ditto
    Ditto PF. Millennial (18-28) workers are stunned when they enter the workforce and realize how little they are going to earn, even after college or post-grad. They have always been taught they were special and riches await them. Then they get entry level jobs and resent their employers. If you meet one of these workers seriously spend some time with them and take them to lunch. Listen to this age group. Caveat: I know not every single millennial is like this I am lumping together many experiences.
  • Get Real Already!
    "It's the 35-54 year-olds who have fallen further behind," WORNG! Everyone (sans the 1%ers) has. Young people in their mid to late 20s have ALWAYS been the engine of US growth. "Moving the goal post" for millennials does not change the fact that millennials can't get good jobs. THIS is why millennials can't buy homes and cars, they want homes and cars, they just can't BUY THEM. The 35 - 54 year olds are the ones keeping the US economy from crashing!

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. Why should citizens rates increase forever to basically reduce Dukes cost to operate in the future? They will have no meter readers, no connect/disconnect personnel and will need fewer lineman to handle the same number of customers. Add to that the ability to replace customer service by giving detailed information electronically. Why do we have to subsidize the cost cutting measures of a Public Utility?

    2. In response to Sassafras, I have to ask if you relocated directly from Bloomington to Carmel? First, as you point out, Carmel is 48 square miles. Do you think it’s possible that some areas are more densely developed than others? That might explain traffic density in some places while others are pretty free moving. Second, your comment “have you ever been to Chicago--or just about any city outside of Indiana?” belies your bias. I don’t know, Sassafras, have you never been to Nashville, Columbus, OH, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Kansas City, Denver, Phoenix? They’re not a lot different in density than Indy. One more thing…I understand these comment sections are for expressing opinions, so those of us just looking for facts have to be patient, but you mention “low-density” Indy. How many cities in the US comprise 400 square miles with about 10% of that still being agricultural? Those facts certainly can impact the statistics.

    3. With all the past shady actions of Duke with utility regulators, one wonders do they really need such a huge amount? Concerned regulators not protecting ratepayers from the aggressive Duke monolith.

    4. I thought that had to be the way it was but had to ask because I wasn't sure. Thanks Again!

    5. I could be wrong, but I don't think Butler views the new dorm as mere replacements for Schwitzer and or Ross.

    ADVERTISEMENT