We have never in recorded US history seen duration of unemployment go this high and its still climbing.

 

 

This will continue to impact the economy and the housing market (along with many other things) into 2010.

 

Home sales tumble as tax credit lift wanes

 

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sales of previously owned homes suffered a record drop last month as the boost from a popular tax credit waned, raising doubts the housing market recovery can be sustained without government support."

 

"Today's numbers clearly indicate that the rebound in housing demand observed so far has been largely supported by government programs and therefore that the recovery is far from becoming self-sustaining," said Anna Piretti, an economist at BNP Paribas in New York."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60O3ES20100125

 

 

^  in the chart above, why is the trough in Unemplyment duration getting larger with each successive recession?

 

One possible reason....job skills are getting more specialized, which makes it harder to find a comparable job when you lose yours.

 

I'm sure there are other reasons.

Green Shoots for everyone!!!!!

 

Verizon to Cut 13,000 Jobs as Businesses Reduce Lines

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agU7mHVKGOFk&pos=4

 

US meat sector job cuts to almost 2000 in three days

http://www.meatinternational.com/news/us-meat-sector-job-cuts-to-almost-2000-in-three-days-id2277.html

 

Walmart to Cut 11,200 Sam’s Club Jobs, Cornell Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aMpbHZkczetk&pos=2

 

Home prices dip in November, Case-Shiller says

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/home-prices-dip-in-november-case-shiller-says-2010-01-26 

Yeah, pretty much the definition of "jobless recovery," and I'm not so sure about the recovery part.

 

That said, the Verizon cuts were in the fixed phone line business, which shrank more than the cellular market grew.  That could have happened whether we were in a recession or not.  The fixed phone line model is really on the way out, IMHO.  The under-30 generation is largely wireless-only now.  In another decade, that will be the under-40 generation, and so on.  From the article, Verizon barely missed the Bloomberg analysts' average projections.

 

The Tysons Foods announcement is a loss.  No doubt about that.  (That said, I will admit that I'm not exactly part of the demand for Tysons products, especially canned meats.)

 

The Wal-Mart announcement is more of a switch than a loss: They're cutting in-house positions but hiring another company to come into Sam's Club stores to perform many of the same functions.  There is definitely a net job loss there, but it's much less than 11,200.

 

As for the dip in home prices: I actually consider that more of a good thing than a bad thing.  I hope home prices stay down for the long term and people give up on a "recovery" in home prices (which, to me, sounds like a reinflation of the home-price bubble).  Home prices relative to income had gotten incredibly out of whack over the decade before the crash; the "crash" was, IMHO, a much-needed and long-overdue correction.  I would be encouraged to see a custom emerge of actually putting 20% down and not financing beyond 2.5x gross.  That would mean lower home prices and lower home ownership rates, but it would almost certainly also mean fewer foreclosures and less demand for the seemingly endless building of ever-larger exurban McMansions.

 

From http://www.mint.com/blog/finance-core/mint-map-real-estate-by-state/

 

That Fort myers can't be right. That's more like 150%.

^ It's impossible mathematically for something to drop more than 100%

Not home prices, maybe.

 

I guarantee you that a corporation's profits can drop by more than 100%.

 

 

    Percent decrease = {(Old sale price - New sale price)/Old sale price} * 100%

 

    {(213,200 - 87,300) / 213,200} * 100% = 59%

But if it goes up 59% from 87,300 it won't = 213,200

But if it goes up 59% from 87,300 it won't = 213,200

 

That is correct. That is why a 50% increase from $100,000 is $150,000. But a 50% decrease from the new $150,000 brings the home price back to $75,000. The decrease number is always a bigger financial lose because it comes from a higher starting price.

Then for some reason population is not counted the same when it has a decrease.

Idk. I guess you are right. I just used the numbers in a Calculator and it came out to the above percentage. It's just looks weird. I never seen a drop like that in housing before.

Another day another surprise for the 'experts'.

 

First-time jobless claims rise unexpectedly

New jobless claims rise unexpectedly to 480,000 as layoffs continue, jobs remain scarce

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Firsttime-jobless-claims-rise-apf-106391038.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=cad1a1ff92758a185ac973f70ef68115&ccode=mp

 

I know I have brought this up several times in the past, that Europe and Japan are in economic crap and its getting deeper every day. Of course, is the US really that far behind? If Great Britian joins the 'party' the world markets are going to go crazy.

 

Greek debt woes spread to Portugal and Spain

Portuguese CDS hit record high as contagion fears intensify

http://www.ft.com/intl/markets

 

Sovereign debt fears rattle investors

Euro and equities tumble and yields widen as contagion spreads

http://www.ft.com/intl/markets

 

And the big shock for the day. :wink:

 

BofA charged with ‘duping’ shareholders

Lewis and Price face action for Merrill deal

http://www.ft.com/home/us

Another day another surprise for the 'experts'.

 

First-time jobless claims rise unexpectedly

New jobless claims rise unexpectedly to 480,000 as layoffs continue, jobs remain scarce

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Firsttime-jobless-claims-rise-apf-106391038.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=cad1a1ff92758a185ac973f70ef68115&ccode=mp

 

I know I have brought this up several times in the past, that Europe and Japan are in economic crap and its getting deeper every day. Of course, is the US really that far behind? If Great Britian joins the 'party' the world markets are going to go crazy.

 

Greek debt woes spread to Portugal and Spain

Portuguese CDS hit record high as contagion fears intensify

http://www.ft.com/intl/markets

 

Sovereign debt fears rattle investors

Euro and equities tumble and yields widen as contagion spreads

http://www.ft.com/intl/markets

 

And the big shock for the day. :wink:

 

BofA charged with ‘duping’ shareholders

Lewis and Price face action for Merrill deal

http://www.ft.com/home/us

 

The 'unexpectedly' thing has to go. Why is everyone shocked all the time? No one really knows what to expect so they shouldn't say 'unexpectedly.'

Any regular reader of this thread knew what to expect years ago.

The 'unexpectedly' thing has to go.  Why is everyone shocked all the time? No one really knows what to expect so they shouldn't say 'unexpectedly.'

 

I like surprises sometimes -

 

January unemployment rate drops to 9.7 percent

 

WASHINGTON – The outlook for jobs became a bit less bleak with January's unexpected decline in the unemployment rate, which fell to 9.7 percent from 10 percent as more people said they had jobs.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100205/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

I don't trust any of these numbers anymore. They are hiding the truth.

Something doesn't add up. "A survey said people found jobs..." But we've had a net loss of jobs for who knows how long. Doesn't the lower rate also indicate a lot of people left the job market altogether? This is one of the problems with how we measure unemployment; it doesn't account for individuals who stopped looking for jobs and left the market entirely.

There's really no point in measuring "unemployment" because it's not an either-or situation.  Less-than-voluntary part time work abounds, as does full time work that doesn't pay a living wage.  We could easily have 2% "unemployment" coupled with rampant poverty.  We've been moving that direction for some time, and that's why the attractive "unemployment" numbers from before this crash were so deceiving. 

 

I'd be more interested in median monthly wages per capita among the working-age non-disabled population.  I'd be even more interested if this number were divided by a cost of living index.  The real question is how much discretionary income is even available to the workforce.  If that ratio is too low, then growth is not possible because commerce is not possible.

The 'unexpectedly' thing has to go. Why is everyone shocked all the time? No one really knows what to expect so they shouldn't say 'unexpectedly.'

 

I like surprises sometimes -

 

January unemployment rate drops to 9.7 percent

 

WASHINGTON – The outlook for jobs became a bit less bleak with January's unexpected decline in the unemployment rate, which fell to 9.7 percent from 10 percent as more people said they had jobs.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100205/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

That's because about 1,000,000 people stopped looking for employment. The news said so!

What "news" told you so?  I thought you didn't trust the news.

 

Anyways, sorry for reporting a little sunshine on the dogs a@#.  I will stick to the script until Jan 2013 rolls around, or if the devil is reelected, until 2017

I dont think none just stopped looking. They just can't find a job.

What "news" told you so?  I thought you didn't trust the news.

 

Anyways, sorry for reporting a little sunshine on the dogs a@#.  I will stick to the script until Jan 2013 rolls around, or if the devil is reelected, until 2017

Haha, the news thing was sarcasm on my part (even though I did see something about that on CNN).  Not important enough to Google.

 

 

Someone should look at the number of working Americans that are not paid with tax dollars (ie private, nonsubsidized sector) and actually pay more to the gov't than they directly receive from the gov't.  Might be too scary to report :)  Not making a case against taxes because they're essential but the balance would be an interesting one to analyze.

 

Carry on.

What about people who own businesses that pay themselves very little or even nothing? These folks are employed, but are allowing their businesses to survive by cutting their own pay. I'm kind of in this category, but it's simply because my business hasn't opened yet (shameless plug: Super Game Team, Columbus' Source for Used Video Games and Movies opens in a few weeks at 1724 Northwest Blvd. Cols, O.) I imagine there are quite a few individuals out there in the "employed but penniless" category, including salespersons on straight commission. Of course, most private businesses don't like to give their financials out to the public, so I suppose it's impossible to measure.

I know it doesn't really fit in with the doom and gloom theme around here, but there are also those scumbags who r collecting unemploy while getting paid under the table either by their former employer or a new one.... lots of them

There are also the millions of stay at home moms running home daycares and getting paid 100% under the table.  That's PLENTY of employed people.

I suppose these scenarios could be measured by anonymous surveys, but would people tell the truth?

We are even more doommed with this higher unemployment tax businesses NOW have to pay. A 27% increase. How the DOW is up 200 points is beyond me.

We are even more doommed with this higher unemployment tax businesses NOW have to pay. A 27% increase. How the DOW is up 200 points is beyond me.

When a company moves its manufacturing out of the country, unemployment goes up here and the company's stock goes up.  That's how.

I know it doesn't really fit in with the doom and gloom theme around here...

 

I take offense to the notion that we're all doom and gloom around here.  In my opinion, what happened from 2002 - 2008 was the doom and gloom, not what is happening now or in the future. 

 

The bubble was the abnormality. It took the country away from it's long-term trends, and misalloacated resources in a big way.  Now, we are correcting... moving from an unhealthy outlier position back to a more healthy position.  True, a lot of people are getting "hurt" in the process, but a lot of those people benefitted from the misallocation of resources during the boom. (true, some innocent bystanders are getting hurt, but even in war, unfortunatley people are killed by "friendly fire".)

 

So what we are discussing on this thread is a "recovery", a "correction", and a return to "normal healthy ways". 

 

That does not sound like "doom and gloom" to me.

 

I still contend, (but with an open mind), that the country cannot contract much more.

 

I base this on the concept that discretionary spending makes up a much smaller percent of a family's financial picture than has in the past 70 years.  Basically, we've create a society where it takes X amount of money just to remain a functioning member.  And that X amount takes up much of the family paycheck(s).  Yes, people can cut back when necessary, but they can't cut far.  Can people shut off utilities?...no.  Can they give up their car?... (in most cases, no)  Can people give up cell phones and computers?... not if you hope to land a decent job.  And so it goes. 

 

We see people cutting back big-time on big-ticket items..... cars, vacations, high-cost electronics.  But the lower-end items of life keep growing nicely (cell phones, car maintenance,etc)

 

Even when a person loses a job, they still have to spend to remain in society.  And today's society demands they spend a fair bit.  Perhaps they spend by borrowing, and then declaring bankruptcy at some point and starting over.  Or maybe they spend by selling assets (houses, retirement funds). Or they spend by finding/creating under-the-table work.

 

But what-ever the case, I still think that people need to spend on the basics just to be able to compete for a job, and that list of basics is much larger today than it was 30 years, or 50 years ago.

 

This all goes back to the down-shifting of consumer spending that we've seen (drop from department store to discount chain, etc).  People are spending less for items, but are they buying fewer items or just less-expensive versions of what they previously bought?

 

And then the well-to-do continue to spend.

 

I work in the retail industry, and quite frankly, our sales are not off that much.  And we've been doing surprisingly good this past few months.  Things took a big hit 18 months ago, but then they started coming back.  First the high-end customers, but gradually the other sectors as well.

 

So, what do all of you think?

I still contend, (but with an open mind), that the country cannot contract much more.

 

I base this on the concept that discretionary spending makes up a much smaller percent of a family's financial picture than has in the past 70 years. Basically, we've create a society where it takes X amount of money just to remain a functioning member. And that X amount takes up much of the family paycheck(s). Yes, people can cut back when necessary, but they can't cut far. Can people shut off utilities?...no. Can they give up their car?... (in most cases, no) Can people give up cell phones and computers?... not if you hope to land a decent job. And so it goes.

 

We see people cutting back big-time on big-ticket items..... cars, vacations, high-cost electronics. But the lower-end items of life keep growing nicely (cell phones, car maintenance,etc)

 

Even when a person loses a job, they still have to spend to remain in society. And today's society demands they spend a fair bit. Perhaps they spend by borrowing, and then declaring bankruptcy at some point and starting over. Or maybe they spend by selling assets (houses, retirement funds). Or they spend by finding/creating under-the-table work.

 

But what-ever the case, I still think that people need to spend on the basics just to be able to compete for a job, and that list of basics is much larger today than it was 30 years, or 50 years ago.

 

This all goes back to the down-shifting of consumer spending that we've seen (drop from department store to discount chain, etc). People are spending less for items, but are they buying fewer items or just less-expensive versions of what they previously bought?

 

And then the well-to-do continue to spend.

 

I work in the retail industry, and quite frankly, our sales are not off that much. And we've been doing surprisingly good this past few months. Things took a big hit 18 months ago, but then they started coming back. First the high-end customers, but gradually the other sectors as well.

 

So, what do all of you think?

 

I guess it depends on where you draw the line as to what "essentials" are, and how significant of a lifestyle change you're willing to endure to carve out room for savings.  For example, I live with a roommate, despite being 28 and having a white-collar job.  There are people younger than me where I work who have houses of their own.  On the flip side, at the same time I was hunting around on Craigslist for a roommate, I also looked at several places in which people who overextended themselves buying McMansions were looking to rent out an individual bedroom.  I was very tempted by some of the offers, but I wanted a more urban existence, so I found a roommate and we got an apartment together in downtown Akron, where I can walk to work.  I'm sure that someone eventually took those rooms in the suburban houses, however.  For a single person, it would be far superior to having a rickety apartment for the same price.  At least, I very much liked the idea of sharing 4000sf rather than having 800sf just to myself.

 

I think financial pressures are going to make it so that more people end up in shared housing arrangements, even after the financial crisis passes.  After all, while foreclosures are up, "near foreclosures" are harder to measure and therefore less reported, but even people who have kept their jobs and can make their mortgage payments can feel pinched and/or uncertain (which I'm sure explains part of the reason our national savings rate has turned positive again).  In addition, at least as far as my experience in the Akron-Canton area goes, is that households have been shrinking while houses have not.  This means that there is essentially extra "room" in any given neighborhood, which I think market pressures will gradually push to change, and cultural norms will change to catch up.

 

I would really like to learn to be able to do some real work on my own car.  That would be a blue-collar skill worth having.  I haven't found the time to invest in that yet, but I'm thinking I might try that on my own car as it gets older (and it's not young anymore).  Obviously, it won't result in any significant cost savings if I don't figure out how to do it right (and therefore have to have the mechanic fix the original problem and then fix what I "fixed"), but I'm sure I could pick it up eventually.

I disagree.  I think there is much more room for belt tightening, and that all people have done is forego big ticket items and some of the useless junk they regularly fill their houses with for the time being.  Drive by any mall with a number of chain restaurants at 7:30 or 8pm on a Saturday night and you will see packed parking lot after packed parking lot with people spilling out the door waiting to get in and drop $25 per person on a meal. 

I disagree. I think there is much more room for belt tightening, and that all people have done is forego big ticket items and some of the useless junk they regularly fill their houses with for the time being. Drive by any mall with a number of chain restaurants at 7:30 or 8pm on a Saturday night and you will see packed parking lot after packed parking lot with people spilling out the door waiting to get in and drop $25 per person on a meal.

 

There is some truth to this, but there has definitely been belt-tightening in the restaurant arena.  Damon's, Max & Erma's, and several other recognizable restaurant chains have filed for bankruptcy recently.  (And yes, I'm aware that those were not exactly gourmet establishments, but still.)

 

I'll admit that there is still room for more belt-tightening on this front, though.  The cost of dinner for a family of four at Applebee's could feed the same family for several days at Aldi or a Wal-Mart Supercenter.

or for 2-3 weeks if they made the food from scratch instead of buying processed food.  Our grandparents, that was making food.  Not opening a box, adding margarine and water and stirring.  Until more people are cooking at home, I don't think times are really that tough. 

 

Edited to add: yes, in times like this, some of the weaker players go under. Max & Erma's and Damon's are pretty lousy as far as their competitors go, and the low hanging fruit gets chopped off in tough times.

I think there is much more room for belt tightening, and that all people have done is forego big ticket items and some of the useless junk they regularly fill their houses with for the time being.  Drive by any mall with a number of chain restaurants at 7:30 or 8pm on a Saturday night and you will see packed parking lot after packed parking lot with people spilling out the door waiting to get in and drop $25 per person on a meal.

 

I think eating out will be the last disposable income area to contract in a meaningful way.  Far too many people choose to 'outsource' food shopping/prep/cleanup.  Frankly, after working hard all day (isn't everyplace understaffed these days?), I can understand holding on to that one little luxury (note - my family & I gave up eating out for all of January to save for a special thing.  Looks like most of Feb will be a repeat).

 

I guess I see eating out as part of the 'trade-down' to little luxeries.  People forego new big TVs to get a cell phone.  People forego clothes shopping for eating out, etc.  One question is... which restaurants are doing best right now?  Those at the lower end of the cost range, or those higher up?  I simply don't know.

 

But that's my point... people are still spending, but trading down.  Therefore, the economic contraction will be checked. There may be room for further belt-tightening, but I suspect that belt-tightening is probably going to stop at trading down, versus throwing out small luxery items.  (big ticket items are a different story.)  but if the economic malaise continues long enough, then I supose even the little luxeries will be discarded.

 

As to household formation, this is definetely a big deal, and if it continues, could result in a further economic drop.  The spill-over effect of household formation has been a major economic driver for the first part of this past decade.  I'm just not sure anything is going to step up and drive national economic expansion in the near future.

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/02/10/kare.missing.bush.kare?hpt=T2

 

:laugh:

Missed him with a pair of shoes, but only narrowly.

I think there is much more room for belt tightening, and that all people have done is forego big ticket items and some of the useless junk they regularly fill their houses with for the time being. Drive by any mall with a number of chain restaurants at 7:30 or 8pm on a Saturday night and you will see packed parking lot after packed parking lot with people spilling out the door waiting to get in and drop $25 per person on a meal.

 

I think eating out will be the last disposable income area to contract in a meaningful way. Far too many people choose to 'outsource' food shopping/prep/cleanup. Frankly, after working hard all day (isn't everyplace understaffed these days?), I can understand holding on to that one little luxury (note - my family & I gave up eating out for all of January to save for a special thing. Looks like most of Feb will be a repeat).

 

Hah.  To each their own.  I chose not to dine out for a while to save up for my big-screen TV. 8)  Life involves trade-offs sometimes.  On the other hand, that became a win-win situation for me, since it meant that I learned to cook (well, by mid-20s bachelor standards) and got my TV.

 

I guess I see eating out as part of the 'trade-down' to little luxeries. People forego new big TVs to get a cell phone. People forego clothes shopping for eating out, etc. One question is... which restaurants are doing best right now? Those at the lower end of the cost range, or those higher up? I simply don't know.

 

I think the Columbus Dispatch ran an article a few months ago about higher-end restaurants trying to come up with more price-competitive meals, so I assume that there was at least some drop-off at the higher end, since it forced management to adapt.  That said, there are still places that get away with $25 for an entree with no problems.  It was the $35-$40 ones that were getting hit.

 

But that's my point... people are still spending, but trading down. Therefore, the economic contraction will be checked. There may be room for further belt-tightening, but I suspect that belt-tightening is probably going to stop at trading down, versus throwing out small luxery items. (big ticket items are a different story.) but if the economic malaise continues long enough, then I supose even the little luxeries will be discarded.

 

As to household formation, this is definetely a big deal, and if it continues, could result in a further economic drop.   The spill-over effect of household formation has been a major economic driver for the first part of this past decade. I'm just not sure anything is going to step up and drive national economic expansion in the near future.

 

Household formation?  As in, people are going to stop forming new families because of this?  Maybe, but I doubt that will slow much or for that long.  There are substantial non-economic motivations for forming a family, after all, and it's not something like a TV that will probably actually be better in 3-5 years.  (Then again, I suppose the range of ages at which people start families has been expanding recently, but there are still natural limits there that have little to do with economics.)

Or you could see more household formation via divorces and seperations.

 

  Have you ever heard anyone say "I can't afford another kid" or something to that effect? Birth rates are dropping across the board. More women working, couples waiting longer to get married, fewer children per family, etc. are cited as the reasons, but those are all effects of a declining economy. People are having fewer kids because they can't afford to have m

 

  Have you ever heard anyone say "I can't afford another kid" or something to that effect? Birth rates are dropping across the board. More women working, couples waiting longer to get married, fewer children per family, etc. are cited as the reasons, but those are all effects of a declining economy. People are having fewer kids because they can't afford to have m

 

Very true, but I got the impression that "household formation" meant something else, i.e., putting off getting married and moving in together, not just having a kid (which doesn't form a new household--it just increases the size of the existing one).

 

Kids are expensive.  I don't think anyone is arguing that point.

Have you ever heard anyone say "I can't afford another kid" or something to that effect?

 

i know in my personal case one set of grandparents lived in depression/wartime Germany of the Nazi era and they had one kid.  The other set married in Depression-era Chicago and had two kids.  So difficult/hard times might have played a role in having small families, esp since they came from larger families.

 

 

A couple points:

Birthrates were actually up above the longer average right through last fall. I haven't seen this years data yet. I'm guessing the birthrate issue will play out in relationship to the length of this unpleasantness.

 

Remember that one of the major causes of the Baby Boom was the combined effect of delayed procreation by the Great Depression/WWII generation piled on top of early procreation by the post-war/50s cohort. Then toss in a higher % of families have 4-6 children, esp. Catholic, but not limited and voila - the baby drought of the 30s/early 40s 'solved' by the boom of the 40s-60s.

 

I actually think the economy in parts is growing quite a bit, but in the aggregate we are screwed because we doubled down in the 00s on the real estate/homebuilding clustercuss and that part of the economy with its wide variety of related industries is way down in the dumps. We doubled down on real estate because it was the one part of the economy that had to be locally produced and could create jobs for moderately educated and immigrants. It couldn't be outsourced or downsized like the rest of the economy was in the late 80s and first half of the 90s. Unfortunately, we way overbuilt and it will take a generation to fix this.

 

From chatting with folks more involved in the economy than I (the history job market is so bad you can't really call it an economy any more), credit is still really hard to come by especially if it involves major investment in homes like 1/4 to 1/3 the current value, but the international package business has recovered quite nicely and didn't let off like they expected after the New Year.

I've never quite understood the American love affair with land, honestly.  I could buy.  I rent.  I'm significantly happier for it.  Someone else takes care of maintenance, which is a sink of both time and money for homeowners.  I've been able to put a lot of money into the stock market during its down years because of money I'm not spending on a mortgage, maintenance, property taxes, etc.  Granted, that's built into the rent to an extent, but it's split up among many units and I crunched the numbers when I moved to Akron.  Renting definitely came out ahead, especially with a roommate.

 

Maybe my perspective will change if/when I get married and have kids.  Maybe.  And I'm sure it would be different if I had a negative relationship with my landlord, but he's a nice guy.

^Indeed. A primary residence is NOT an investment unless serious sweat equity and rehabbing is involved, no matter what anyone tells you. It's practically impossible in most situations for home appreciation to outpace the combination of loan interest, inflation, upkeep, insurance, property taxes and additional time out of your day that it takes to be a homeowner.

but I got the impression that "household formation" meant something else, i.e., putting off getting married and moving in together

 

My reference to "houshold formation" was along the lines of demand for housing units.... kids moving back home, kids living at home longer, sole appartment renters moving in with others (apparently in some cities you can't find a 2-bedroom appt to rent, but there are a zillion 1-bedroom appts available), etc. In other words, people "doubling up" in various ways.  The whole marraige/baby thing is a tiny part of it so far, as those events usually have a long lead-time. The effects of a 2-year down-turn are just starting to impact those areas, I suspect. 

I could buy.  I rent.  I'm significantly happier for it.

 

I rented for many, many years after college and getting married.  My main reason... housing flexibility.  I could have afforded a house, but I valued the ability to change cities for job/other reasons whenever I wanted to.

 

But like you suspect, once children enter the picture, the valuation equation can change.  Usually when the nipper hits about 14 months old. (our job pictures also clarified a bit at that time as well, otherwise, we would have rented longer.)

but I got the impression that "household formation" meant something else, i.e., putting off getting married and moving in together

 

My reference to "houshold formation" was along the lines of demand for housing units.... kids moving back home, kids living at home longer, sole appartment renters moving in with others (apparently in some cities you can't find a 2-bedroom appt to rent, but there are a zillion 1-bedroom appts available), etc. In other words, people "doubling up" in various ways. The whole marraige/baby thing is a tiny part of it so far, as those events usually have a long lead-time. The effects of a 2-year down-turn are just starting to impact those areas, I suspect.

 

I rented for many, many years after college and getting married.  My main reason... housing flexibility.  I could have afforded a house, but I valued the ability to change cities for job/other reasons whenever I wanted to.

 

But like you suspect, once children enter the picture, the valuation equation can change.  Usually when the nipper hits about 14 months old. (our job pictures also clarified a bit at that time as well, otherwise, we would have rented longer.)

 

Fair points all.