The article is trying really hard to push an inter-generational conflict narrative, but it's missing a very important detail: are boomers adding/subtracting from the housing supply, on net? They are "more active in the housing market" and are responsible for more of the housing purchases, but that itself isn't really an indication of anything. If they're just upsizing/downsizing, then they're not "snatching houses" from the overall housing supply. If anything, boomers selling houses in urban centers for suburban/rural houses (I suspect boomers aren't dying to get a house in SF for the nightlife) should be a good thing for millennials. The linked zillow report hints at this, because they also mention boomers using their equity for all-cash offers. If they were buying a second house, that would indeed be bad, but I doubt this is the case. I don't think banks would give a $500k mortgage to 60 year olds.