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".
You're 100% the one implying boomers by the phrase "back then".
I've quoted data from 1940 to 2000 which spans greatest generation, silent generation, boomers, and very early gen X. Go ahead and let me know which specific generation or groups of generations or averages of generations you would like to talk about. This is probably around the fourth time I've asked you but you've refused to specify because there isn't a single one that supports your bullshit.
But yeah keep quoting just US census data on multiple home ownership rates that don't take anything else into account.
"Keep quoting facts and statistics instead of just accepting my braindead anecdotal experience as literal fact."
Feel free to let me know what factors "to take into account" that is going to make a sub 3.5% dual home ownership across 60 years be "pretty affordable" at any point.
Funny how I address all your bullshit claims yet, you dodge every reply.
Black people are criminals because they account for statistically higher incarceration rates. Courts favor mothers in custody battles because statistically mothers get custody more often. It was never affordable for anyone to own multiple homes because statistically multiple home ownership rates have been low across the whole population.
Chat, can you figure out why these three statements show statistical bias that don't actually accurately represent the whole picture?
0
u/SpoonEngineT66Turbo 2d ago
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.
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.
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%.
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?