Tag Archives: Baby boomers

How Did They Survive Childhood?

Are you one of the baby boomers, born between 1946 and 1964? How did you survive without government intervention?

[090322-b-cigs.jpg]

Their mothers smoked and/or drank while pregnant.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can and didn’t get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, they were put to sleep on their tummies in baby cribs covered with brightly colored, lead-based paints.

There were no childproof lids on medicine or special locks on cabinet doors.

They rode bikes, we wore baseball caps, not specially engineered helmets.

As infants, they rode in cars without car seats or booster seats, no seat belts and no air bags. Sometimes, as tots, they rode in small moving boxes packed with blankets and toys.

They rode in the back of pickup trucks and no one was arrested or cited.

They drank water from garden hoses, not from plastic bottles.

They shared a single bottle of Coca-Cola with three friends — and no one died.

They ate cupcakes with food coloring, white bread, real butter and bacon. In fact, we drank Kool-Aid mixed with tablespoons of real sugar.

Yet they weren’t overweight, because we were always outside playing.

They would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as they were back when dusk fell. And no one was able to reach them all day. And: they were okay.

They spend hours in the forest with Daisy rifles, or building go-carts without brakes, or sledding with wooden and steel monstrosities that could sever a limb.

They didn’t have Playstations, Nintendo’s and X-Boxes. There were no video games, no cable television, no DVD players. There were no computers, no web, no Facebook, no Twitter.

They had friends and we went outside and found them… without cell phones or text messages.

They fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits resulting from these accidents. They ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in them forever.

They were given BB guns and knives for their birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls, played lawn darts and, although they were told it would happen, they did not put out many eyes.

They rode bikes or walked to a friend’s house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them.

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn’t had to learn to deal with disappointment.

The boomers have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers, inventors and entrepreneurs ever.

The last 50 years have seen an explosion of innovation and new ideas.

They had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and they learned how to deal with it.


https://i0.wp.com/www.hacer.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/rulesforradicalscover.jpg

Then they started reading this…

https://i1.wp.com/cdn1.epictimes.com/richardebeling/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2015/01/Obama-and-the-Declaration-of-Independence.png

that opposed this.

https://i2.wp.com/media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0b/06/19/0b06190a4ab0f51c20749d8189b487e3.jpg

and gave up everything for this.

https://i2.wp.com/media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/f0/70/52/f07052a5fadf7e3ac00a6500cc3fc8b1.jpg

Advertisements

Dreaming Big: Americans Still Yearning for Larger Homes

by Ralph McLaughlin | Trulia

https://i0.wp.com/media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/4e/db/ef/4edbef39bc7ca7378eb266f56b71a350.jpg

43% of adults would prefer homes bigger than where they currently live, but attitudes differ by age. Baby boomers would prefer to upsize rather than downsize by only a small margin, while the gap among millennials is much wider, with GenXers falling in between. Would-be downsizers outnumber upsizers only among households living in the largest homes.

Last year, we found that Baby Boomers were especially unlikely to live in multi-unit housing. At the same time, we noted that the share of seniors living in multi-unit housing rather than single-family homes has been shrinking for decades. These findings got us thinking about how the generations vary in house-size preference. So we surveyed over 2000 people at the end of last year to figure out if boomers have different house-size preferences than their younger counterparts. And that led us to ask: What size homes do Americans really want?

Image 1

Most Americans are not living in the size home they want

https://i0.wp.com/tinyhouseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Rustic-guest-cottage-8.jpg

As a whole, Americans are living in a world of mismatch – only 40% of our respondents said they are living in the size home that’s ideal. Furthermore, over 43% answered that the size of their ideal residence is somewhat or much larger than their current digs. Only 16% told us that their ideal residence is smaller than their existing home. However, these overall figures mask what is going on within different generations.

It’s natural to think that baby boomers are the generation most likely to downsize.  After all, their nests are emptying and they may move when they retire.  As it turns out though, more boomers would prefer to live in a larger home than a smaller one: 21% said their ideal residence is smaller than their current home, while 26% wanted a larger home – a 5-percentage-point difference. Clearly, boomers don’t feel a massive yearn to downsize. On the contrary, just over half (53%) said they’re already living in their ideally sized home. Nonetheless, members of this generation are more likely to want to downsize than millennials and GenXers.

In fact, those younger generations want some elbow room. First, the millennials. They’re looking to move on up by a big margin: just over 60% told us their ideal residence is larger than where they live now – the largest proportion among the generations in our sample. By contrast, only a little over 13% of millennials said they’d rather have a smaller home than their existing one – which is also the smallest among the generations in our sample. The results are clear: millennials are much more likely to want to upsize than downsize.

The next generation up the ladder, the GenXers, are hitting their peak earning years and many in this group may be in a position to trade up. Many aren’t living in their ideally sized home. Just 38% said where they live now is dream sized. Nearly a majority (48%) said their dream home is larger, while only 14% of GenXers would rather have a smaller home.  This is the generation that bore the brunt of the foreclosure crisis. So, some of this mismatch could be because a significant number of GenXers lost homes during the housing bust and may now be living in smaller-than-desired quarters. But a much more probable reason is that many GenXers are in their peak child-rearing years. With kids bouncing off the walls, the place may be feeling a tad crowded.

Even the groups that seem ripe for downsizing don’t want smaller homes

Of course, age doesn’t tell the whole story about why people might want to downsize. It could be that certain kinds of households, – such as those without children, and living in the suburbs or in affordable areas – might be more likely to live in larger homes than they need. But our survey shows that households in these categories are about twice as likely to want a larger than a smaller home. For those with kids especially, the desire to upsize is strong: 39% preferred a larger home versus 18% who liked a smaller home.  For those living in the suburbs, the disparity is even greater – 42% to 16%. And even among those living in the most affordable zip codes, where ideally-sized homes might be within the budgets of households, 40% of our respondents preferred larger homes versus 20% who said smaller.

Image 2

Are all households more likely to upsize than downsize?

At this point you might be asking, “Are there any types of households that want to downsize?” The answer is yes. But only one kind of household falls into this category – those living in homes larger than 3,200 square feet.  Of this group, 26% wanted to downsize versus 25% that wanted to upsize – a slight difference. But, when we looked overall at survey responses based on the size of current residence, households wanting a larger home kicked up as current home size went down. We can see this clearly when we divide households into six groups based on the size of the home they’re living in now. Among households living in 2,600-3,200 square foot homes, 37% prefer a larger home versus 16% a smaller home; in 2,000–2,600 square foot homes, its 34% to 18%; 38% to 18% in 1,400–2,000 square foot homes; 55% to 13% in 800–1,400 square foot homes; and 66% to 13% in homes less than 800 square feet. This makes intuitive sense.  Those living in the biggest homes are most likely to have gotten a home larger than their ideal size. And those in the smallest homes are probably the ones feeling most squeezed.

Image 3 (2)

The responses to our survey show significantly more demand for larger homes than for smaller ones. But the reality, of course, is that households must make tradeoffs between things like accessibility, amenities, and affordability when choosing what size homes to get. The “ideal” sized home for most Americans may be larger than where they’re living now. But that spacious dream home may not be practical.  As result, the mismatch between what Americans say they want and what best suits their circumstances may persist.

Many Seniors Trying To Retire With A Mortgage

http://www.trbimg.com/img-541cd768/turbine/la-baby-boomer-mortgages-20140919/750/750x422 By Andrew Khouri

When Tom Greco bought his four-bedroom home three decades ago, he assumed he’d pay off the mortgage before retirement — just as his parents did.

Things didn’t work out that way.

Instead, his $4,500 monthly mortgage payments — a consequence of several equity withdraws over the years — became a financial drag.

“It’s pretty hard to retire with that,” the Irvine attorney, 66, said.

More and more older homeowners are carrying mortgage debt, a burden that threatens to delay their retirement and curtail spending among the massive baby boomer population.

Nearly a third of homeowners 65 and older had a mortgage in 2011, up from 22% in 2001, according to an analysis from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, using the latest available data.

Tom Greco and his wife are downsizing
Tom Greco and his wife are downsizing from an Irvine house to a Lake Forest condo. To retire, Greco needs to reduce his mortgage payment. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

The debt burden also grew — with older homeowners owing a median of $79,000 in 2011, compared with an inflation-adjusted $43,400 a decade earlier.

For decades, Americans strove hard to pay off their mortgages before retirement, an aspiration that when achieved was celebrated with mortgage-burning parties.

But for the latest retirees, reaching that goal, if they ever had it, is increasingly less likely.

Baby boomers bought homes later in life, and with smaller down payments, than previous generations, said Stacy Canan, deputy assistant director of the consumer bureau’s Office for Older Americans. Many also refinanced during the housing bubble and used cash from their equity withdraws to pay off other debt, take vacations or put children through college. Surging home prices and low interest rates made that possible.

Then the recession hit. Job losses delayed attempts to pay off mortgages. And many baby boomers took in their adult children after the collapse, refinancing to help their kids weather a brutal job market, said James Wells, a housing counselor with ClearPoint Credit Counseling Solutions.

“Before, the children could take care of themselves,” he said. “Now, not so much.”

The number of mortgage-holding households headed by someone 65 or older rose from 3.8 million in 2001 to 6.1 million a decade later, the consumer bureau said.

Rising debt levels also reflect a psychological shift among Americans, financial advisers and economists say.

“People who lived through the Great Depression came out of that period with a great aversion to debt,” said Lori Trawinski, director of banking and finance with AARP’s Public Policy Institute. “As a culture we have loosened our opinion of debt.”

As baby boomers enter retirement age — 10,000 per day, according to one estimate — the decisions that once supported an easier lifestyle could make later years tougher. Some may have to keep working to pay their mortgage, and others will have to cut back on other expenses to retire, the bureau’s Canan said.

“People will indeed have to do some juggling of their budgets,” she said.

Jacqueline Murphy is doing just that. The former clerical worker for the New York City Police Department retired in March, thinking her pension and Social Security, coupled with a part-time job, would allow her to live comfortably and cover mortgage payments on the Bronx town home she bought for $375,000 during the housing bubble.

But the 63-year-old hasn’t yet found a part-time gig, and a large chunk of her income is going to the $2,200-a-month mortgage.

So she’s cutting back. She keeps the lights off as much as possible, has cut back on gardening to reduce the water bill, and sometimes gets help from family to buy groceries.

“I thought retirement was going to be wonderful,” she said. “Now that I am retired, I am sorry that I did. I am focused on how I am going to make it to next week, how am I going to make it to the next mortgage payment, and I am constantly worried.”

Wells, the housing counselor, said those he counsels often didn’t budget for reduced retirement income when they refinanced to help their children, fix a car or take a vacation. They were working then, so the payments seemed reasonable.

“They are not really thinking long term at that point,” he said.

Greco, the Orange County attorney, said he took a “shortsighted view.” Enticed by dropping interest rates, he refinanced his Irvine home four times.

He then used the money from the cash-out refinancings to pay down credit card debt and finance home renovations, including a pool he himself designed.

“A foolish move,” he said of the refinancing, but one that many others, including friends, did as well.

A recent study from Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies showed that of mortgage holders ages 65 to 79, nearly half spent 30% or more of their income on housing costs. Of mortgage holders 80 or older, 61% pay that amount on housing.

And the debt carries further risks.

Sudden changes in expenses, such as those stemming from health problems, can expose seniors with mortgages to greater financial peril, the consumer bureau’s study said. And if another downturn comes, retirement savings and investments are likely to take a hit, raising the chance of foreclosure.

One option is to downsize.

That’s the choice Greco made. In August, he and his wife sold their Irvine house. Next month they plan to move into a Lake Forest condo, knocking down their mortgage payment by thousands of dollars. Even after downsizing, Greco said, he simply can’t retire as he wishes. There’s the condo mortgage and other debt he must pay.

So instead, he plans to gradually work less and less. He started this month, a day after his 66th birthday, by working half-days on Fridays.

In five years, he hopes to have paid down the condo loan enough to get a reverse mortgage that will allow him to only take on cases that interest him.

Reverse mortgages allow people at least 62 years old to receive payments based on the equity in their homes. But unlike a traditional home equity loan, a reverse mortgage does not require monthly payments. The loan, which is easier to qualify for than a home equity line of credit, doesn’t come due until the home is sold or the borrower moves out or dies.

Having to still work is not the ideal situation, Greco said, but retirement will be far easier without the Irvine house as an anchor.

“I needed to get out of that mortgage,” he said.

andrew.khouri@latimes.com  Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times