You must log in or register to comment.

Wilt_The_Stilt_ t1_j9rjd17 wrote

This chart is ill-suited for the analysis your title is trying to suggest. It’s extremely difficult to deduce the gap between races at each age group without looking at each line at each vertical value bar and recreating the source table by hand.

For a comparison it would be better to have 1 line for each generation that plots the gap between the two over time. That way you could, at a glance, say that the gap was wider or narrower for a certain generation at a specific age compared to another generation at the same age.


mion81 t1_j9tqhd1 wrote

In fact, it is impossible to look at the chart (however carefully) and verify the statement in the title. The boomer lines are narrowing. We would need to know the overall size of each cohort to weight them and compare them in aggregate.


darexinfinity t1_j9x08v9 wrote

Having a White - Black line for each generation should help. If the gap really is getting worse then the difference should get higher for each generation.


HungryLikeTheWolf99 t1_j9qvtrd wrote

For the purpose of digging into this data (not necessarily for the visualization itself), it would be nice to see black and white averages compared across income cohorts, or otherwise somehow controlled for income. That is, are the black mean incomes just lower but home ownership on par with white income peers, or is there a racial effect across income levels?


Apartment_List OP t1_j9qxzmu wrote

Good callout -- these are all important factors not considered in this analysis. This report may be interesting to you. It finds that gaps in income, marital status, and credit scores explain some (but not all) of the gap.


chicagotim1 t1_j9rfzvj wrote

I am quite surprised that the generational gaps are as small as they are


diox8tony t1_j9shrtu wrote

50% of millennial 30 year olds own homes? Doubt it


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9t0pub wrote

Only if you consume too much reddit.

Homeownership is higher than it was decades ago when it was supposedly easier to by a home


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9vbruh wrote

Great link! I suppose it isn't surprising. Loose interpretation is that anyone with a pulse can buy a home in rural Kentucky but California/Oregon not so much.


Centrismo t1_j9vebfj wrote

How are you getting home ownership rate for millennials out of that data?

This link is much more relevant


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9vi31k wrote

Overall rates have improved since the 1960s (your chart only shows 1980s). Millennials also include those 35-40. If you just half your own chart for <35 and 35-40, that sure looks to be around 50% to me from eyeballing it.


Centrismo t1_j9vidlm wrote

Im not disagreeing, just pointing out your conclusion doesn’t follow from the data you provided. Millenial home ownership is just shy of 50% right now.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9vjx02 wrote

just shy of 50% right now.

I think you're being slightly pedantic here. Most people round up on numbers over 5.


Centrismo t1_j9vkwrq wrote

Im being confusing I guess. The chart you originally provided as evidence that millennial home ownership is increasing over time did not actually prove that millennial home ownership has been increasing. The reality is that it has been increasing, we agree on that.

However if home ownership increased disproportionately amongst boomers relative to millennials it would skew the data you linked to show overall ownership increasing while ownership amongst millennials could be decreasing. You can only reach the conclusion you did if the data is normalized such that home ownership rates for specific age groups is compared at the point in time when each group was the same age.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9vlspm wrote

You already admitted that it is just shy of 50%. I think you're just trying to argue at this point.


Centrismo t1_j9vm3wx wrote

You are missing my point. I agree that 50% of millennials own homes.

I am trying to say that the data you provided does not prove that. You got the right answer doing the wrong thing basically.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9vmcs6 wrote

&gt; I am trying to say that the data you provided does not prove that.

Where in my original argument did I claim that? Did you stop to consider that my point wasn't to directly address the millennial portion of the argument and instead point to overall ownership in the U.S. (which is arguably more important)?

Again, you're being needlessly pedantic.


Centrismo t1_j9vn70s wrote

You should reread the comment chain from the top down then. Your comment absolutely implied that millennial ownership was increasing. Overall ownership includes millennials does it not?


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9vtl1i wrote

I made two separate sentences clearly delineated by a new line.... How that eludes you is beyond me.

What I say in this line is intended to be distinct from the one above.


Centrismo t1_j9vytyv wrote

If being obtuse and calling me pedantic makes you feel like a winner then I'm happy for you.

This conversation is boring now though.

Glad we could devolve so quickly to insulting each other.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9vz9up wrote

I'm not trying to be rude, but my guy you're literally being pedantic over the most insanely minor details. As I said, you're just trying to argue. Rather than trying to recognize my point, you're picking at something incredibly minor.


Centrismo t1_j9w60qo wrote

Its only pedantic if the detail is irrelevant. Im trying to show you that that detail completely undermines the point you’re trying to make. Im not arguing against your point at all, I agree with you. Im saying the way you justified that point was with insufficient data. If you cant see why the chart I provided makes your point better than the chart you provided then this is a waste of time.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9w82bv wrote

>Its only pedantic if the detail is irrelevant.

... being pedantic is basically brooding over minor relevant details.

I completely agree that the chart you provided directly addresses the first portion of my comment I made better than the comment I provided.

What I am trying to point out to you is that my second line of commentary was addressing my broad concern regarding reddit perceptions regarding homeownership, rather than for homeownership for millennials specifically. Even a slightly charitable interpretation would recognize that once pointed out. I've pointed out that I made two separate statements that should be evaluated as such multiple times. You refuse to view it from this perspective. Look at how this comment (and my others) are structured. This is a comment section, not a peer reviewed paper. Some generous parsing and interpretation are generally required.

It doesn't take a stretch of imagination to figure out that redditors seem to perceive home ownership is out of reach for most people. I was attempting to point out that perception isn't grounded in reality.


Centrismo t1_j9wcwyc wrote

Sorry for being dismissive and combative. The more I’m researching the less clear the picture appears to be. Take another look at your original chart.

Notice “The homeownership rate is the proportion of households that is owner-occupied.” The homeownership rate doesn’t actually tell us much about per capita home ownership, just the rental rate for houses. The link I provided used the same homeownership metric.

Im struggling to find the actual number of people who live in a house they own, but we can extrapolate from the homelessness rate and apartment rental rate. This article seems like a good summary:

Compare those rental numbers to the total homeless population:

Seems like the per capita number of homeowners is declining. Further, considering wages aren’t keeping up with inflation and housing cost increases are outpacing inflation this paints a picture that home ownership is becoming less accessible.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9wfewj wrote

If you realllly want to argue this, I'm happy to do so. You're cherry picking (aka intentionally arguing). Given your passion (which I admire), I suspect you seem to believe the U.S. is uniquely bad for first-world countries. I strongly recommend that you look at homelessness rates (which you raised as an issue) for the U.S. against other developed countries. You'll find that the U.S. actually performs better than some peer countries (again, despite reddit opinions).

Homelessness (per 10K)

UK - 54.4

Australia - 49.1

Sweden - 36

US - 17.5

Denmark - 11

Iceland - 10

In the U.S. homelessness rates correlate almost perfectly with drug usage rates. I'm not trying to knock people who use drugs, but you can't exactly ignore "other factors" when they don't confirm your perceptions.

You seem (forgive me here) very invested in the idea where US = bad without sufficient evidence. This is a very common reddit perspective.


Centrismo t1_j9whc0y wrote

I think you can demonstrate that homeownership is becoming less accessible over time.

I don’t think the america=bad trope is valid though.

From my perspective I think a decline in home ownership is the expected and inevitable result of increasing urbanization and the inherent logistical challenges of building high population density cities. Its a trend that we can observe in most if not all countries. Thats not necessarily bad, its just a societal transition from the suburban to urban.

The homeless rate has been declining, which indicates that the housing situation is improving. However when compared to the increase in rental rates for apartments and the relatively stagnant rental rates for houses we can only say that the number of housed individuals is increasing, we cannot say the number of home owners is increasing.

The links I provided above show the per capita rate of home ownership is declining overtime while the per capita rate of renters is increasing, at least over the last 20 years. Personally I think we should try to reverse this trend, but it may not be logistically possible at our population level.

My general impression is that we are heading toward an era where the majority of people are renters and I think we can expect a further class divide to emerge between renters and owners. This is not unique to America, but rather a consequence of the global trend toward high density urban development and exacerbated by the neoliberal economic policies that have been dominant since the 80s that have caused wages to decouple from the inflation rate.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9wi7nr wrote

I think you can demonstrate that homeownership is becoming less accessible over time.

... My original comment that seemed to cause you so much heartburn literally showed homeownership rates have increased since the 60s. Take the opinions out of the equation...

Aside from that, I show you the U.S. is better regarding homelessness compared with supposedly "better" countries and you immediately shift the goal post...

&gt;My general impression is that we are heading toward an era where the
majority of people are renters and I think we can expect a further class
divide to emerge between renters and owners.

How can you possibly arrive at that conclusion when your initial complaint was over my source which showed that homeownership rates have actually increased since the 1960s....

You're a hammer in search of nails.


Centrismo t1_j9wkyhi wrote

I guess you didn’t look at your original source again like I asked. It does not track the number of people who own homes. That chart tracked the “homeownership rate” which is specifically the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner of the home.

Hypothetically If you have 100 people and 50 of them live in a house, of those 50 lets say 25 own the home and 25 rent the home, then the per capita rate of people that own homes would be 25% while the “homeownership rate” as defined by your source would be 50%.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9wlmi4 wrote

Oh my gosh. My guy... you're being needlessly pedantic here. I showed you **RATES** by country. Do you understand what that means?

I've taught undergrads, grads, doctoral students for over a decade and, to be honest, you're possibly the most stubborn person I've encountered in my life.

You do you. Good luck. You win! You're the best ever. Whatever.


Centrismo t1_j9wmmla wrote

Please address the previous comment. You do see how the home ownership rate does not track the total number of people who own a home right? Im worried that a teacher cant interpret the sources they are providing correctly. If we interpret your source the way that you are it implies that there are more homeowners in the US than there are homes. You read the chart wrong.

What it actually says is that out of all the homes in the US polled by the census X percent of them were occupied by the home owner. That is not the same thing as X percent of all people in the country own a home. The homeownership rate can increase while the per capita rate of home ownership decreases.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9wq679 wrote

... what do you think "rate" means...


Centrismo t1_j9wqidh wrote

Please stop assuming Im an idiot, I know what rate means. The “home ownership rate”, As Defined By Your Source, measures the percent of homes that are owned by one of the occupants. It does not measure the percent of the population that owns a home.

Do I need to screen cap the part of your source’s notes that specifies that for you or do you genuinely not understand why those two measures are different?


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9xs2pw wrote

You've spent over a dozen comments arguing a point I was right about and a second point you misinterpreted. I think we can stop here.


Centrismo t1_j9xu5rp wrote

You’re not qualified to be a teacher if that’s truly what you’re taking away from this exchange. Im genuinely floored you can’t understand me, I’ve made it so clear.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9xuk2g wrote

I have a Ph.D. and publish. According to accreditation standards, I'm pretty sure I'm good to go in terms of qualification.


jdjdthrow t1_j9ygvn5 wrote

That's measuring the proportion of households that are owner-occupied, not the proportion of people that own their own home.

If a 30-year old still lives with his parents, he's not even included in the data-- he's part of a single household with his parents. Multi-generational living arrangements have increased substantially over the decades...

It's a pretty hard row to hoe to deny that housing costs have outstripped income gains for the last xx years. On a nationwide basis, it's indisputable.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9yhz1s wrote

It's effectively the same thing. Hence why that measure is used. It matches perfectly with 1 - rental rates.

I don't dispute that housing costs have outstripped income gains. However, when you look at the drivers of that, homes are also getting larger and more modern (read: expensive to build). Asbestos was in basically all old homes because it was dirt cheap. Same with shag carpets. Same with lead in paint, etc.

Edit: Home sizes more than doubled from 1960 to 2010


jdjdthrow t1_j9ytzpf wrote

>homes are also getting larger and more modern

Okay, but we're talking about poor young people. The ones not buying homes. They're living with family or in apartments with roommates (as opposed to getting married).


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9yv91i wrote

>Okay, but we're talking about poor young people.

Um, since when? We were talking about millennials.


44_WeLoveYou t1_j9tlpfc wrote

a steady diet of reddit doom and gloom will warp your prespective.

Every third post on here is about someone's depression, mental health issue, self diagnosed physical ailment, being a moderator, unwillingness to hold a job, etc... its no wonder that this segment of the population might not be out there buying houses.


DIYThrowaway01 t1_j9tm3zi wrote

Seriously Reddit is probably the most depressing cesspool on earth but here I am - an addict for over a decade.


420everytime t1_j9tccj2 wrote

Doesn’t this say 50% of white millennial 30 year olds own homes?

In the very white town in Georgia that I grew up in, probably more than 50% of 30 year olds own homes.

Granted, you can get a nice home in that town for under $150k, but generally speaking homes are much cheaper in small town white America than in more diverse cities.


lileebean t1_j9tnoq9 wrote

Yeah I live in rural MN. My husband and I are in our mid-30s, and we've owned a home since our mid-20s. 5 bed, 3 bath house with a big yard. Our mortgage is less than 900 a month. I understand you can't rent an apartment for that in a big city...which is why we don't live there?


cheeze_whiz_shampoo t1_j9u0uq0 wrote

I have a friend in rural minnesota (town less than 400 people) and a few years ago he bought a nice 3 bedroom home that was dated but very well taken care of. Price? 55k, haha.


King-Of-Rats t1_j9tgt1y wrote

Eh, that seems right to me.

If you’ve only lived in large cities your entire life then… yeah, every house you see is going to be like $400,000.

A lot of America just doesn’t live in those cities and never has. If you are living in Idaho or Montana there are a lot of places where you can still get a house pretty comfortably with some degree of dual income (or just one decent job).


RSomnambulist t1_j9tla1g wrote

83% of Americans are living in urban areas, so uh, what?


King-Of-Rats t1_j9u2g64 wrote

well, 1, that’s nearly 20% of people able to afford a home much more easily. And 2. Please look at the definition of urban under whatever source you’re getting that figure from and relay it to me


King-Of-Rats t1_j9u7l2v wrote

Are you dumb or something. I asked for how your source (and in this case, your sources source) defines “urban populations”.


RSomnambulist t1_j9v92kn wrote

I'm not going to read it for you. You asked for the source. There you go.


King-Of-Rats t1_j9vdsm2 wrote

No I didn’t you fucking idiot lmao. I asked how they defined “urban“ within your source and you’re too brain dead to both comprehend me and also to know that your source is referencing yet another one - which you haven’t read.


Youre a moron who just googled for the fastest article they could get to support your point without having any clue what you’re talking about. The world is worse for you being on it. May god have mercy on your parents for they must live with the guilt of your existence


InspectorG-007 t1_j9topls wrote

Hence the migration pattern the last couple years with people leaving the cities.

Cities are too expensive regardless of race.


RSomnambulist t1_j9tz9n3 wrote

The 2050 figure is 89%. I don't see people moving out of cities, just into smaller, cheaper ones. I'd be willing to bet that the result of that will be the urbanization of more almost-suburban areas in the future--more cities, rather than people living outside of one.


InspectorG-007 t1_j9u4zpr wrote

Possibly. Small Modular Reactors and Automated delivery systems could offset that.

Cost will be a limiting factor. Cities get exponentially more expensive as they build 'upwards' not just in dollar terms but also resource.


RSomnambulist t1_j9u73f7 wrote

I think a lot of this depends on if we ever actually get decent public transport like more trains.


InspectorG-007 t1_j9u7k7q wrote

In the 15 minute cities, sure. But out beyond?

Very unrealistic. How many billions will it cost City A with population 7,000 to City B population 2500 30 miles away?

At best, IMO, electric vehicles inside the big cities, hybrids and ICE out in the boonies.


Jerund t1_j9u2vwr wrote

I see it with my friend group. Around half bought houses/condos.


NecrisRO t1_j9subty wrote

Yeah, something isn't right about the data, if they have the son of X rich guy with 1000 homes and 1000 dudes with no home and average that as 100% ownership ? Because I have a hunch that's what's happening here.


Jonsj t1_j9t5j7d wrote

That would not average to 100% ownership, it would average to 1 home per person, very different.

The statistic would read 0,1% home ownership.


Jerund t1_j9u34ye wrote

Exactly. If one person owns ten homes. You aren’t counted as ten homeowner. You would just be counted as 1 homeowner.


Never_Been_Missed t1_j9rh7gg wrote

Me too. I've felt bad for Millennials for a while now in their supposed inability to own their own home. It would appear I've done so for naught.


Nightblood83 t1_j9tghh3 wrote

Nah, my cohort just realized there's a bunch of suckers for victim status. Its weird. People wear hardships like pieces of flair.


King-Of-Rats t1_j9tgxrn wrote

Relax man. You’re not being objective when you say things like this either.


Nightblood83 t1_j9ue7mb wrote

Objectivity is rarely achieved by the press, much less reddit.

Its true all over though. Crime down, fear of crime up. Actual bigotry down, accusations of racism way up.

Anecdotes have overtaken stats as the driver of way too many aspects of our lives.

The whole "calm down" and "relax!" responses are part of our new linguistic jujitsu. I wrote the above while taking my morning shit and was and am super relaxed (in my home w a 3.5% interest rate)


King-Of-Rats t1_j9ueeli wrote

I think pseudointellectualism has taken over rational thought, in your case


Nightblood83 t1_j9ukt2z wrote

Almost as insulting as being an actual intellectual, which is seemingly ad hominem attacks unrelated to my comments.


Centrismo t1_j9vgvw7 wrote

The implication that these metrics improving over time leads to better living conditions isn’t necessarily true. Being objectively more comfortable and safer won’t necessarily make you subjectively happier. Consider the old adage that ignorance is bliss.

It might be harder to exist in a safer more comfortable world if you are also (due to information spread) more aware of how your existence impacts others or the nature of your existence itself. The world improving in the way you’re saying might be inherently tied to emotional and existential struggles that make the quality of life improvements irrelevant for many people.


Nightblood83 t1_j9y94x0 wrote

True, and it really is the beauty of data that even though it seems 'hard', there is still plenty to interpret and discuss.

I agree 100% that society isn't in a great head space. I personally believe that to be a problem largely of mindset and outlook on the future, which is learned based on experience and what info one is intaking.

The news, for instance, is not a public service. Its eye candy to sell the crap on the commercials, just like cartoons, comedy specials, and sitcoms.

A lot of people are sad because they see 10 of 10 sad stories, and this leads a human to believe all is sad. There's plenty of love in the world.


-UserOfNames t1_j9tg5b3 wrote

If I’m reading it correctly, millennials have been crying wolf


ColdBrewedPanacea t1_j9tif9v wrote

People who live in cities cant afford shit

People who dont can

People who live in cities can find work

People who dont can less (only in specific fields)


Jerund t1_j9u3779 wrote

Change all “people” to Redditors.


[deleted] t1_j9ru151 wrote

Rural areas have higher homeownership rates than urban areas: 81.1 percent compared to 59.8 percent.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9t0vn7 wrote

Seems obvious to me. Rural homes are much more affordable and available.


Apartment_List OP t1_j9qsz9r wrote

This chart uses 100+ years of US Census data to show homeownership rates for each generation at different stages of life.
A lot has been said about millennials struggling to afford homeownership. But by age 40, white millennials have reached a homeownership rate of 70%, higher than Gen X and only a few percentage points shy of earlier generations. However for Black millennials, only 39% own homes by age 40. For three consecutive generations, the Black homeownership rate has slipped and the racial homeownership gap has widened.
Some additional commentary for each generation:
GREATEST (born 1901-1927)
The fastest growth in US homeownership took place between 1940-80, when the Greatest generation was in their 30s-70s. This was driven by a post-WWII construction boom and mass migration to the suburbs. The era was characterized by legal racial discrimination, worsening segregation, and “white flight.” White families bought homes in the suburbs, while Black families bought homes in the emptied city centers.
SILENT (born 1928-1945)
The suburban housing boom also boosted homeownership for the Silent, who were in their teens-50s at the time. For both white and Black households, Silent homeownership would eclipse Greatest homeownership.
BABY BOOMER (born 1946-1964)
The oldest generation hit by the Great Recession. Boomers were 44-62 in 2008 and you can see their homeownership rates dip during those ages. But the effect was worse for Black homeowners, who were 76% more likely than white homeowners to experience foreclose during the market crash.
GENERATION X (born 1965-1980)
The unequal effects of the recession hit younger generations too: Gen X was in their 30s and 40s. White Gen Xers reached 50% homeownership by age 29, whereas it would take Black Gen Xers until age 54.
MILLENNIAL (both 1981-1996)
Millennials came of age during the housing bubble and homeownership has grown slower than previous generations. Black millennial homeownership is growing at a similar pace to white households born nearly 100 years earlier.
Full Report:
Black homeownership rebounding but stagnant since the 1970s
Data Source:
US Census Bureau, Decennial Census (1920-1990) and American Community Survey (2020-2021). Microdata accessed via IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota.
Chart designed in R using packages ipumsr, dplyr, ggplot2.


Zeeto17 t1_j9smojj wrote

How about Indian and Asian homeowner? The top earners in the US


MidnightMoon1331 t1_j9qwmqw wrote

I wonder what cause The Greatest Generation such a delay in homeownership. Wars?


Apartment_List OP t1_j9qxjcd wrote

Their return from WWII coincided with a handful of social changes that encouraged homeownership: massive suburban housing construction (see: Levittown), government-sponsored VA mortgages, and a whole lot of couples having children.


studmuffffffin t1_j9rriho wrote

Wouldn't the data show the opposite then? It's showing very low home ownership in that generation.


Cptof_THEObvious t1_j9ttu3p wrote

It seems to imply moreso that they got a late start. Great Depression before the war, so not great ownership then. The war happens, their wives join the work force, the ones who come back get GI bill and other benefits on top, and suddenly they can afford some houses. By retirement age, they've pretty much caught up in ownership, aided by the start of a boom in housing development (the effect of the fully developed boom can be seen in the extremely high rates in Boomers).


studmuffffffin t1_j9tumav wrote

The slope is still lower than the other generations slightly. It takes 13-15 years from age 20-35 to get from 10% to 60% for the other generations. It takes 22 years from age 25-42 the boomers to get from 10% to 60%.

I don't think OP explanation is good enough. Even with a late start, it takes longer to get there.


DeadFIL t1_j9vktsz wrote

Those changes stuck around. When people 20-30 were coming back from the war, some of those changes started. They didn't get back and suddenly millions of suburban houses poofed into existence the same day.


MidnightMoon1331 t1_j9r0a98 wrote

I used to live in Levittown! They also outlawed blacks from buying in there.

So I guess that generation springboarded Americans to buy more houses?


pookiedookie232 t1_j9qxjrj wrote

Great depression followed by a war followed by a huge increase in people's mobility (including lots of veterans using their GI Bill post WW2)

Just my guess, lol


Bulbchanger5000 t1_j9s3bvk wrote

My AP US history teacher in HS was an early boomer whose dad was a WWII vet. He said that his family lived in apartments when he was young because there was a big delay in getting all the housing funded by the GI bill built. I think a part of what encouraged the standardized housing neighborhoods like Levittown in the first place was that they needed to speed up production for all the demand generated from GIs that had come home.


ShrugOfATLAS t1_j9uhp59 wrote

After WWII black soldiers were denied the G.I. Bill which aided in the the generational wage gap


genesiss23 t1_j9vbcem wrote

There were relatively few housing starts in the 1930s and practically none during ww2. By the end of ww2, there was a massive shortage. My paternal grandparents returned home during ww2. It took them mo the to find a separate apartment which they wanted because my father was born.


coronaflo t1_j9r6vlt wrote

Are Latinos considered white in this chart or not considered?


Apartment_List OP t1_j9r9sp5 wrote

Latinos can fall into either of these two groups.


[deleted] t1_j9rhzew wrote



ad-lapidem t1_j9rj7xo wrote

"Hispanic" is an ancestry/ethnicity under US government definitions, not a racial one. This does make things very complicated for data collection.


MinutPop t1_j9symez wrote

The US gov has a strange definition of race.. White could mean anyone who is not African or Asian.. I wonder what that chart would look like if you consider all the groups within this “white” collection, for example: Germanic, Slavic, Roman, Norse, Berber, Arab & Turkic


ad-lapidem t1_j9thjnz wrote

All racial categories are social/political, not scientific, as the Census itself is careful to observe. Labels and self identification change over time as well.


MinutPop t1_j9tlngw wrote

So why clump together everything that is not asian or african? And have separate categories for those? 🤷‍♂️


ad-lapidem t1_j9tq5jz wrote

You're asking why an arbitrary definition is arbitrary in a certain way and not another? Ask the OMB.


Apartment_List OP t1_j9rkecm wrote

In census data, race and hispanic/latino origin are two distinct concepts.

Race is based on self-identification and has five categories: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. People can identify with one or more of these groups.

Hispanic or Latino origin is based on heritage and also have five categories: None, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and “other Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin."

Hispanic/Latinos can be of any race. An Afro-Caribbean household may be Hispanic and Black. And Anglo-Spanish household may be Hispanic and White.

There is also, of course, nuance in how people identify with the terms Hispanic, Latino, and Spanish, but the Census Bureau uses them interchangeably.


_crazyboyhere_ t1_j9s7y1n wrote

Hispanic isn't a race but a linguistic category. Hispanics can be fully European/White like Spaniards, fully Indigenous like Amerindians, fully Black like descendants of slaves, half Indigenous and half European like Mestizos, half Black and half White like Mulattos, 3/4th European and 1/4th Indigenous like Castizos and anything you can think of. Hispanic literally means Spanish speaker, it is no different from calling all English speakers Anglos.


russellzerotohero t1_j9rojzr wrote

They would actually fall under white… Hispanic is an ethnicity not a race.


TrickyPlastic t1_j9tjtrb wrote

It's not even that. It's based on language. And Latino is based on culture. Brazilians are Latino but not Hispanic.

Mestizo would be the name of the actual biological racial category.


russellzerotohero t1_j9tojmw wrote

From what I understand it’s pretty hard to pin down all of Latin America into a group like that. Since there is so much diversity in said group. Argentinian vs Mexican for example.


BadBunnyYonaguni t1_j9urf71 wrote

Fun fact I learned from a Colombian - most common language in South America? Portuguese. Ethnic group with largest plurality? White people. You can look it up on wiki. Shocking to me as an Indian lol.


longhorn4598 t1_j9snoc5 wrote

The simplest explanation is decline in marriage rates. Easier for two-income households to afford a house. Would like to see the data further broken down to show this. That would tell a completely different story that has nothing to do with race.


TrySomeCommonSense t1_j9qtf4m wrote

I think you mean it widens as age advances.

It's pretty similar generation to generation.


Apartment_List OP t1_j9qwi56 wrote

Widening as age advances has the effect of widening the gap over time: it was 22 percentage points in 1980 and has widened to 29 today.


drearyana t1_j9r1dxq wrote

I’m curious what the overall homeownership rate and investment property rate is as population density rises. Also, is homeownership defined by “at least 1 owned house”? Because I feel like we all have a white friend who owns an airbnb/rental property that would have otherwise been a home on the market.


Apartment_List OP t1_j9r36a4 wrote

Homeownership is actually a unit-level stat, not a person-level stat (at least that's how the census collects it). The technical definition is:

  • denominator: occupied housing units
  • numerator: occupied housing units that are owner-occupied

To attach person-level info like age & race, standard practice is to use info about the household head.


crimeo t1_j9sgdsz wrote

> airbnb/rental property that would have otherwise been a home on the market.

Rental properties are homes, my man. AirBNB are not.


Asmewithoutpolitics t1_j9qv8xw wrote

Can we do one for major cities? No way is minority home ownership that high in for example LA or New York


Apartment_List OP t1_j9qvxp1 wrote

Unfortunately the subgroups get too small/noisy if we try to split this by city.
But you're right -- large, expensive cities have lower homeownership rates, particularly for Black households. The states with the highest Black homeownership rate are in the Southeastern US: South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia.


1up_for_life t1_j9ryun6 wrote

Shouldn't all the different generations all be on the same line? There shouldn't be any age overlap between them.


TheAviotorDemNutzz t1_j9so4wt wrote

Well… the rich have just been getting richer. So I guess this isn’t really a surprise because of what has been going on with the commodification of housing.


non-number-name t1_j9rul8p wrote

My idiot brain had me staring at this graph for a solid ten seconds looking for the solid and dotted black lines.


sudden_aggression t1_j9rupg8 wrote

My family is like a dozen different shades of white/black. What is the cutoff point for being considered one or the other?


ggggthrowawaygggg t1_j9s2lsc wrote

American Statistician Name The Generational Cohorts By Decade Of Birth Challenge: IMPOSSIBLE


adamhanson t1_j9s4ipk wrote

Each year the gap between homeowners and me is widening.


theCelticFriar t1_j9s4rgv wrote

I'd like to see the data split or at least able to be viewed in Urban vs Rural. If memory serves you're more likely to find non-white living in Urban areas which could impact employment, income level, credit, housing cost, etc.


crimeo t1_j9sfo2x wrote

This is a really bizarre graph... 35 in age for example represents a completely different point in history for every one of the generations, so if the gap is bigger, is it:

  • Because of racist stuff changing or accumulating? Or...

  • Because of home ownership changing nationwide over those intervening years, in general, and that showing up at different points along the X axis for each generation even though it was simultaneous, tricking the viewer?

For example, if Gen X is 20 years younger than Millenial, then 50 for the blue line = the same point in time as 30 for the purple line. The gap at 50 on the blue line is around 28%. The gap at 30 on the purple line is... about 28%

So... gap in home ownership for Gen X and Millenials was actually dead even at the same point in actual time? But not when you spread them out by making the X axis age.

That doesn't mean both things aren't still happening. Just that we can't interpret it from a graph. I think this needs to not be a graph at all that humans have no way to validly make sense of, but instead a multivariate analysis to control out each variable each way and find the most well fitting model.

Unrelated: it would be vastly easier to follow if there was just a "ratio" line for each, not two lines.


varmau t1_j9sgvup wrote

This growing gap is not surprising in an age when homeownership is so difficult. For many, the only path to home ownership is inheritance of a house or down payment. Greater need to rely on inheritance to achieve homeownership means that the inequalities of the past are amplified rather than mitigated. White people can inherit from multiple generations (parents, grandparents, great grandparents) while black people have fewer parents, grandparents, etc. who were homeowners (the main source of intergenerational wealth) and get less inheritance.

When homeownership is based on individual achievement, then the gap can close over time as the achievement gap closes (which it has vs. boomers, greatest, etc.).


stvaccount t1_j9st7we wrote

Income, income of parents, mean income of state.


CodeMonkeyPhoto t1_j9ta1s4 wrote

Yeah I think I noticed it on those flip or buy house shows my spouse watches from time to time. Everyone, everywhere is white.


Lambsio t1_j9tara4 wrote

Is does home ownership include ongoing mortgages or just full ownership?


Altrooke t1_j9tngc2 wrote

This is an amazin viz. Holy shoot.


underscore-DJ t1_j9tp5sd wrote

Is this graph showing true home ownership or mortgage ownership?


LargestAdultSon t1_j9u6xsk wrote

Interesting to see that millennials are overtaking gen x home ownership among White people, and it’s on pace to happen with Black folks, as well. I don’t have much background knowledge here, but I wonder if this is related to 2008 happening kind of in the middle of Gen X’s prime home-buying years.


10xwannabe t1_j9ubxex wrote

Every once in awhile I see a piece of data that just BLOWS my mind. Here is one that just does blows my mind for you all... Home ownership for blacks is the SAME today for blacks as it was in 1980!!! So after the last 40+ years home ownership for blacks has not improved at all. That is just crazy.


broom2100 t1_j9vcw1c wrote

Title has nothing to do with the chart.


ZoharDTeach t1_j9vd5ih wrote

Why does it only compare black and white?


daveed4445 t1_j9vddu2 wrote

Be positive millennials are beating the Greatest generation who lived during both the depression and WW2


JumboShrimp1234 t1_j9vick8 wrote

This sub is garbage now. Literally just random charts, nothing “beautiful” about this


Chemical-Gammas t1_j9vkd4k wrote

Not really - only millennials have much of a difference in recent generations, and they are catching back up to traditional gap in other generations.


Uriah1024 t1_j9vm85h wrote

Now cross reference this data with each race's criminal history by populace.


dude_who_could t1_j9vxisi wrote

This is hard to read. Data is not beautiful.


Ineludible_Ruin t1_j9s7ezt wrote

I'm sure there's some sort of racist policy or action to explain this present day despite all the effort being put in to do the opposite. /s


420BigDawg_ t1_j9sljs3 wrote

40% of millennials do not own a home I’m sorry but what the fuck is this data. Look around! I realize this is official USA data.


brotherray71 t1_j9ttcqf wrote

War against poverty seems to be backfiring. Or was that the plan all along?


offaseptimus t1_j9ucqri wrote

There are more than two races in America, it is odd and suspicious when graphs deliberately exclude Asians and Hispanics.

(Not including Native American and Pacific Islanders sometimes makes sense because of small sample sizes)


_crazyboyhere_ t1_j9v13l4 wrote

Hispanics will fall in either of the two categories as well as Native and Mixed.


only_llama t1_j9umfoa wrote

Takeaway: it's actually mind-blowing that this many people own a home from the two most recent generations (Gen Z not pictured to avoid a horror story).

  • It takes two incomes on average to own a home these days
  • As a country, US has absolutely horrible childcare and after school care options. Many dual income household pay a high double-digit % of their mortgage for daycare
  • Many young parents are literally forced to reduce hours, stop career advancement or quit all together if they want to maintain population growth
  • Record number of people in their 20s and 30s living with parents

Thanks federal, state and local governments for collectively shrugging your shoulders while your most productive tax-paying cohorts are getting blamed for having it too easy, skipping homeownership, and not having kids. Good luck to all!


artaig t1_j9rnqkd wrote

Use real data, like income, not pseudo-scientific nonsense, like race, if you really want to see the real world and learn how to make it better.


varmau t1_j9sh3la wrote

“Race is not real”…something only a white person would say.


Simon_cant_jump t1_j9rfg78 wrote

What a very binary view of what constitutues 'race', 'black' or 'white'.

I guess that's the state of race relations in the US. It would not be appropriate for most other countries, certainly not New Zealand.


Apartment_List OP t1_j9rh6f5 wrote

I would argue researchers in the United States, of all places, are acutely aware of the nuance and complexity surrounding race and ethnicity.


Lanky_Fella t1_j9son8w wrote

Why the USA of all places? It’s globally known that the USA has very reductionist racial categories. It’s one of the few countries that actually count it in the census and it gives a list of categories to choose from that often don’t include people


crimeo t1_j9sfzq1 wrote

Then why didn't they put it in their graph? "They're genius experts at this, but they just keep it to themselves because reasons"