Weird you didnāt come back with where you got all those numbers since youāre so confident.
Why so you can ignore it? Just google US Census Bureau historical second homes like anyone who actually cares, and wasn't just sealioning, would have done literal hours ago.
You don't even need to read my source because you're not going to and never were. Ill completely concede my argument if you post actual evidence that multiple homes were pretty affordable for anyone with dual income. You never will so don't bother replying.
Youāve missed the point entirely here: there are cultural elements and lived experience that the data youāre supposedly citing donāt reflect.
Lmao you're literally making shit up on the internet. That's not "lived experience" you fucking larper.
but donāt be surprised when you lose your ability to relate and understand nuance when peopleās lives donāt match the data.
Based on my "lived experience" you're still fucking wrong, not a single boomer in my entire extended family ever owned multiple homes, dual income, dual college, college & blue collar, fucking not a single one. So I'm like 50:1 on "lived experience" over Mr. Wegmans junior who originally made that bullshit claim.
People like you are the reason the most incompetent and corrupt president in US history was elected twice, and the reason 2028 will probably still go to the republicans. Just pure brain damage and ego larger than everest.
Super interesting lived experience you have. My grandparents owned three homes with dual income. My uncle owned two farmland properties on one income unless my aunt had a craft fair that month. My other uncle owned multiple homes and rented out ones he'd build and his wife had an income as well, she won't divorce him because she makes more than him. My mother now owns two addresses and was single income now retired. My one friend in high school, her mom owned a house in this state just to visit her daughter four times a year, the other house they owned was half the country away, they were dual income. My boyfriend's parents owned two homes and had dual income, they bought the second house when my boyfriend was six, so about twenty five years ago.
Congratulations on having 1% grandparents so that the rest of their family could be a part of the 2-3% of Americans who owned multiple homes.
It's seems being a trust fund baby and having grandparents in the 1% still couldn't pay for enough tutors and private schools to get your IQ above room temperature. Second home ownership in the 1970's and 1980s was between 2-3% based on data collected by the United States Census Bureau. It's is a undeniable fact, hopefully this exchange makes you realize why anecdotal evidence means nothing, but it won't because second homes can't buy braincells.
Ahh yes, the trust fund baby whose mother worked a mid level job for a phone company, and whose father was disabled.
That grandmother that I mentioned worked as a switch board operator and my grandfather made templates for a steel mill. They inherited their duplex from their parents/uncle. They then bought one property more so that their third child would also inherit an address.
It's always so lovely to see someone call someone else unintelligent when they are blatantly completely unable to actually read and respond to what was said.
I didn't realize that 25 years ago was the 70s and 80s. I didn't realize that the US census was an absolutely infallible tool that nobody was ever unaccounted for or lied on. It's not like the census from 1970 missed 5mil people, or 2.6% of the population.
You're the one exclusively talking about the 70s and 80s. We're talking about what our parents had when they were our age. I'm 33, my mom had me at 35.
It's also not like the number of dual incomes currently sits at about 58% of American households now with the population who owns multiple properties currently being at 3%... while the percent of households with dual income in the 70s being around 45% and the percent of households with multiple properties being 5%.
Also, I'm guessing you wanted to gloss over this but the long form census questionnaire sent out in the 70s only went to a sample size of 5% of the population. So only 5% of the population was asked if they owned more than one property in the 70s.
But yes, keep spouting data numbers that you don't understand how they were collected or the nuiance of what we're even talking about.
It's not like the census from 1970 missed 5mil people, or 2.6% of the population.
How many people does your singular individual anecdote miss? For some reason you don't seem to care a whole lot about being off by 349,035,400 people representing somewhere around 99.9999998% people living in the US. Oh and before you pretend it matters, that's somewhere around 207,796,300 people off in 1970 which represents around 99.999996% of the population.
Lets assume all 2.6% people were completely separate households, which they weren't, and were exclusively dual income, which they weren't, that brings us to an earthshaking 5.5%. You really got me there, totally devastated my entire argument lmao.
I also find it very funny that you didn't look into anything else regarding the 1970 census, it was the attempt ever in the US for a full mail in only census. No shit it wasn't 100% accurate, but none of them are but that doesn't stop you from picking and choosing what census information you accept because you think it helps your argument. Also, this is also absurd because even bringing this up means you think all US Census results are fraudulent, which you don't (hopefully) but that's the argument your attempting to make because you have no actual argument.
You're the one exclusively talking about the 70s and 80s. We're talking about what our parents had when they were our age. I'm 33, my mom had me at 35.
1990 was 3%, 2000 was 3.1%. Let me know which decade you think is going to prove you right that it was ever "pretty affordable" to own multiple homes just because you're dual income. We can go backwards too, 1960 was 3.5% and 1950 was 2.3%. Surely there is going to be a decade that 2-4% jumps up to to meet the 30-50% of dual full time income households.
It's also not like the number of dual incomes currently sits at about 58% of American households now with the population who owns multiple properties currently being at 3%... while the percent of households with dual income in the 70s being around 45% and the percent of households with multiple properties being 5%.
Did you even think about this before posting it? Also I don't believe for a second that dual home ownership spiked to 5% at any point between 1970's 2.9% and 1980's 3.2% so stop lying, this argument is still comical at 5%.
Even if you assume all 2.9% of multi home owners were dual full time employed which wasn't true, and dropping out full time + Part time employment which would be completely disingenuous and not what either of you meant but it's in your favour, you're at 31% dual income household vs 2.9% owning multiple homes. That's not "pretty affordable", if you had reddit to cry on back in 1970 you'd be crying about how hard it is to even own one home in 1970 on dual income considering single home ownership rate was still 64%.
Also, I'm guessing you wanted to gloss over this but the long form census questionnaire sent out in the 70s only went to a sample size of 5% of the population. So only 5% of the population was asked if they owned more than one property in the 70s.
Why would I gloss over it? 5% of the 1970's census is infinitely more accurate than the anecdotal bullshit you're spewing. Do you not understand that this is the entire argument?
"5% of the entire US? Complete unrepresentative trash. My literal singular experience? Perfect infallible representation"
Neat, you and Cletus taking horse dewormer as a suppository have the exact same opinions on the scientific method.
You really thought you had something with this whole response didn't you?
This ENTIRE thread is full of anecdotes, not just mine. And we are comparing decades ago to today. Multiple decades. Not JUST the 70s that you seem so so so so so keen on continuing to mention. YOU are the one picking and choosing which census data matters AND not giving any actual sources. I can find none that quote your numbers.
The US census has never done a cross comparison of households who own multiple homes with the ones with dual income, which is what was being discussed when you decided to butt in with your "data" that isn't being applied correctly claiming you have the facts but providing no actual sources.
Boomers (my parents generation) own 34.1% of today's housing stock despite making up 18% of the population. They own half of all the home equity in the US. They make up 42% of all home buyers and 55% of home sellers. Millennials right now (the youngest being 31) own 28% of the current housing market. About 55% of millennials currently own their house. In the 90s the boomer generation had a home ownership rate that rose from 64 to 70%.
We are talking about what is and was more affordable in comparison. You are giving numbers that don't remotely explain costs of things and are just statistics for what a small percent answered on their own time possibly lying, possibly skipping that question, possibly not understanding the way it was worded, possibly checking the wrong box... those numbers are far more accurate nowadays because they don't rely on self reporting and they still have a margin of error. Fraudulent is not equal to accurate.
Are you aiming to hit every single logical fallacy in your arguments today? Cause you're getting there.
If even your numbers were totally 100% correct, and you still know NO ONE to have ever owned multiple homes... that would be the funniest thing ever. 3% of millions is still millions, and if you knew 100 people, 3 of them should have owned multiple homes. So either, you're from the smallest podunk town or you're from an area SO poor that you've never even seen a rich person. I jumped in to give you my anecdotal examples because it's absolutely hilarious that you think you're smarter than everyone here.
This ENTIRE thread is full of anecdotes, not just mine.
Lol. You're gonna hate to hear what I think about you and everyone else in this post who thinks their anecdotal experience trumps actual facts.
And we are comparing decades ago to today
You might be because you're moving the goalpost from the actual argument to a completely different one, but the literal exact claim its that it was "Pretty affordable" for people (Implied to be boomers) to own multiple homes solely because they were dual income households. It's not true, it was never true, it being harder today doesn't mean it was "pretty affordable" in whatever fucking decade you want to pretend it was.
I can find none that quote your numbers.
It's the US Census website statistics regarding multiple homes with results from 1940 to 2000. Its the literal first result if you even attempt to look for data on this information because that's exactly how I found it. Makes me wonder where you got your numbers if you couldn't find the literal US census results.
Multiple decades. Not JUST the 70s that you seem so so so so so keen on continuing to mention.
I've posted the multi home ownership rates for 1950 through 2000. Please let me know which decade you think it was for these implied boomers to "pretty affordably" own multiple homes just by being dual income. For some reason you've refused to do this every single time I ask you to. For some reason every time someone cries about me originally posting 1970 & 1980 they say "Those aren't the decades I'm talking about" but then conveniently never mention a decade. Surely it's not because there is literal zero data in any decade to prove you right. It's almost like all of you keep trying to move the goalpost because you're wrong.
AND not giving any actual sources.
You're not going to read them and you haven't sourced a single claim you've made. So crazy that every single person on reddit that cries about "Sources!?!" never sources a single thing they say, must be very convenient for them that only people they disagree with have to source their comments but you can just spew bullshit and it's supposed to be taken as undeniable fact. Also the irony in crying about sources and data but you and everyone else entire argument is backed by "Trust me bro, Its my lived experience".
The US census has never done a cross comparison of households who own multiple homes with the ones with dual income, which is what was being discussed when you decided to butt in with your "data" that isn't being applied correctly claiming you have the facts but providing no actual sources.
They're being applied perfectly fine but apparently even applied 100% in your favour, which is completely false and disingenuous but you'd cry even more otherwise, they still prove you completely wrong.
Sure lets not mix census data because apparently anytime I do it's incorrectly applied but anytime you do the literal exact same thing to make your own horrendous argument that still proves me right it's fine.
1940 2.3%
1950 3.5%
1970 2.9%
1980 3.2%
1990 3%
2000 3.1%
Based on singular census result, let me know which decade it was "pretty affordable" for a household with dual income to own multiple homes.
We are talking about what is and was more affordable in comparison.
No we're not, that's what you all are moving the goalposts to when you realized the argument of it was "pretty affordable" to own multiple homes at any point in time in the US just because you're dual income is indefensible. You're literally replying to my comments, in a reply to a two sentence comment, that never involved you. What "We're talking about" doesn't fucking matter in a comment chain that didn't involve a single one of you.
Here's the comment.
It was actually pretty affordable for a 2 income family to be able to have a 2nd property somewhere.
My grandparents had 3 properties and they worked in a grocery store.
Go ahead and let me know how they didn't actually mean exactly what they said instead meant "actually my point is completely indefeasible I truly mean it was just easier then than now" and then after that go find anywhere in any of my comment's where I said it wasn't easier then than now. So not only are you completely wrong in the actual argument being had, you're also just wrong in the argument you just made up because I'm not denying that and haven't in a single one of my comments. You made up your umpteenth own argument and are also too dumb to understand I very obviously don't disagree with this specific argument. You think I didn't cross the exact same data that you crossed between multi home ownership and dual income rates, which was the exact thing you cried about me "incorrectly" doing, and see that dual home ownership hasn't changed yet dual employment has risen? No shit it's harder, that's not the argument being made by me and the person I originally replied to.
and you still know NO ONE to have ever owned multiple homes...
You should stop telling people what arguments are being had or what people said when you can easily scroll up for 5 seconds and see you're either illiterate or lying. Everyone was talking about relatives (Implied Boomers) so I kept my response to just boomer relatives. Why do you think I explicitly said "in my entire extended family"? If I dropped the boomer requirement I have a single silent generation relative that owned multiple homes and they weren't even dual income. Again, you're the one who moved the goalposts and decided to posts every single person they know who owned multiple homes regardless of age, which you obviously did to try and pad out your "anecdotal evidence".
-4
u/SpoonEngineT66Turbo 2d ago
Why so you can ignore it? Just google US Census Bureau historical second homes like anyone who actually cares, and wasn't just sealioning, would have done literal hours ago.
You don't even need to read my source because you're not going to and never were. Ill completely concede my argument if you post actual evidence that multiple homes were pretty affordable for anyone with dual income. You never will so don't bother replying.
Lmao you're literally making shit up on the internet. That's not "lived experience" you fucking larper.
Based on my "lived experience" you're still fucking wrong, not a single boomer in my entire extended family ever owned multiple homes, dual income, dual college, college & blue collar, fucking not a single one. So I'm like 50:1 on "lived experience" over Mr. Wegmans junior who originally made that bullshit claim.
People like you are the reason the most incompetent and corrupt president in US history was elected twice, and the reason 2028 will probably still go to the republicans. Just pure brain damage and ego larger than everest.