The Rise of the Forever Renter Class

Re:The Rise of the Forever Renter Class by Ekaros on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @11:17AM (#40286717)

Also during industrial revolution there were lot more population centres. Lot of large factories were not near existing cities, but instead communities got build around them. Thus population started to concentrate, but was still more spread out. Now due to globalisation those factories are gone and thus the smaller towns around them have no more single big employer with all the downstream activity.

Issue is not so much moving from rural to urban, but hyper-urbanisation. Where we have not taken early enough action to build enough housing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Rise of the Forever Renter Class by ta1243 on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @12:12PM (#40287567)

Local multinational has its UK headquarters in a nearby town here in England. It's considering moving its HQ to a city 40 miles away, despite the extra cost, because it can't get trained staff.

Doesn't help that the town is in a train desert.

Rural England (which is not exactly Rural by US or even France standards) suffers from a self-perpetuating brain drain. Unless you're on a commuter line into a city.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Rise of the Forever Renter Class by michaelt on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @12:38PM (#40288009)

I was once offered a job by Dyson, at their Malmesbury HQ, but I wasn't going to move to a town with a single major employer (and very limited job prospects for my then-partner were she to accompany me) so I turned them down.

Turned out to be the right decision, because shortly after they moved their HQ to Singapore.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Rise of the Forever Renter Class by panarky on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @12:54PM (#40288251)

A major factor causing increased demand for housing that's rarely discussed is the dramatic drop in the number of people per household.

Consider a hypothetical city with a population of 100,000:

1960: average household size: 3.63 persons

1960 housing units needed at 3.63 persons/household: 27,548 units

2020: average household size: 2.28 persons

2020 housing units needed at 2.28 persons/household: 43,860 units

So even with zero population growth, the city would need 59% more housing units.

That increase in demand drives up the price per housing unit.

At the same time, the decrease in the number of people per unit reduces each household's earning power, and makes it much more difficult for that household to afford the cost of housing.

No wonder few can afford to buy their own place.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Rise of the Forever Renter Class by munksbeer on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @01:05PM (#40288435)

That is interesting. Is this discussed anywhere, more formally? I guess the simple reason is that people had more children previously. But then, what about the second order effect that households with fewer children also need less space and would be happy to have an apartment rather than a four bedroom house?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Rise of the Forever Renter Class by rickydroll on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @01:25PM (#40288759)

I have seen some discussion about this. It's usually in the context of a divorce, converting one household into two households.

To answer your question about households with smaller numbers of people, it all depends on what you do outside of work and what's important to your life. For me, having a home office, home computer lab, gardening, astronomy, hiking, casual birdwatching, and turning pieces of wood and metal into sawdust and metal chips are all important and completely incompatible with apartment living. For my partner, having an art studio is incredibly important. Again, it is incompatible with apartment living.

Traffic and city noise are not good for me (they raise my blood pressure), which is kind of why I am okay with losing my hearing. I can't hear it as much as my partner can, and I'm not sure I want to get hearing aids. I would've moved farther away from the city, but my partner works deep in Cambridge, Mass., and we went as far as she could stand the commute.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Rise of the Forever Renter Class by tzs on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @09:11PM (#40293355)

> For me, having a home office, home computer lab, gardening, astronomy, hiking, casual birdwatching, and turning pieces of wood and metal into sawdust and metal chips are all important and completely incompatible with apartment living.

Why is hiking incompatible with apartment living?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Rise of the Forever Renter Class by flycaliguy on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @09:47PM (#40293567)

Probably has a stick collection.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Rise of the Forever Renter Class by rickydroll on Wednesday May 08, 2024 @08:27AM (#40297255)

Good question. Of all my interests, hiking is the most compatible with apartment living. :-) When I was living in an apartment, the usual problem was finding a place to store equipment. I eventually gave up and found a way to semi-permanently stage my kit in my car. This made it easier to have a grumpy moment and flee to a trailhead.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Rise of the Forever Renter Class by imtringued on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @01:12PM (#40288556)

Less children? We have more singles than ever.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Rise of the Forever Renter Class by TheCoelacanth on Wednesday May 08, 2024 @04:35AM (#40295678)

It's primarily just higher expectations. People are richer than ever and expect more space.

[ Parent | on HN ]