“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
“Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
.@calculatedrisk argues housing prices in real terms will be under pressure for some time as the bottom in prices can lag the bottom in investment by years. He expects at least 10% decline in nominal prices from peak with 2.4% already having occurred.
My expectation is residential investment will decline further in 2023, although the largest percentage decline was in 2022. If we look at the most comparable period to the current cycle, the 1978 to 1982 period, we see that real house prices bottomed several years after activity bottomed. Activity bottomed in 1981 or early 1982, but house prices didn’t return to the previous peak (inflation adjusted) until mid-1986. The timing and extent of nominal price declines is difficult to predict. I’ve guessed that we will see 10%+ in nominal price declines nationally. We’ve already seen national price declines of 2.4% seasonally adjusted (Case-Shiller National Index) as sellers appear to be willing to give back some of the extraordinary gains over the last two years (not completely “sticky”). The bottom line is that there will be two bottoms for housing: one for activity and the other for prices. Existing home sales may have already bottomed, but we will see further declines in residential investment. Prices - especially in real terms - will be under pressure for some time.
The median age of American first-time home buyers was 35 years old in 2025, up from 32 in 2015.
At what age do people buy their first home? My analysis of data from the University of Michigan’s Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) shows that, on average, they’re 35—three years older than a decade ago, and eight years older than in the 1970s. The PSID is a remarkable dataset. Like wildlife researchers tagging a pod of whales, the researchers at the University of Michigan have tracked 85,000 individuals from 5,000 families they began studying in 1968. This ‘longitudinal’ data allows us to observe the kids in these families as they leave home, form their own households, rent their first apartments, and eventually become first time buyers (FTBs) of homes. And because specific individuals are tracked over time, we can pinpoint the exact moment someone transitions from renting to owning for the first time, and how old they were when it happened. No other U.S. dataset can do this, and none go as far back as the 1960s.
Related Articles:
What Explains Low Millennial Home Ownership?— 60% of millennials who are married and living apart from their parents at age 30 own a home, compared to 68% of comparable baby boomers. At 30, 42% of…
As of 2024, American homeowners who bought a house within the last year were spending 26% of their income on housing, relative to 20% for existing homeowners – the largest gap in almost 40 years.
Historically, monthly housing costs for new and existing homeowners have tended to move in tandem. From 1990 through the aftermath of the Great Recession, both groups saw costs rise during booms and fall during downturns, with the gap between them remaining relatively stable at two to four percentage points. That pattern briefly reversed during the Great Recession, when new buyers were able to purchase homes at depressed prices and consequently spent slightly less of their income on housing than existing owners. By 2017, the typical two-point gap had returned. The current divergence began in earnest in 2022. By 2024, new homeowners were spending 26% of their income on housing, compared to 20% for existing homeowners — a six-percentage-point gap, the largest in nearly 40 years. Although new homeowners spent a slightly larger share of their income on housing at the peak of the housing bubble in 2007 (28%), the gap with existing homeowners was smaller (four percentage points).
Affordability, Part II— Krugman highlights two concrete facts that help explain the social frustration reflected in discussions of “affordability:” the income of the young hasn’t kept…
The share of American 30-year-olds living with their parents or roommates nearly doubled btw 1990 and 2025, from 17% to 32%. Aziz Sunderji finds that this group is largely responsible for the age cohort’s 15pp decline in homeownership over that period.
Among married 30-year-olds, the homeownership rate has barely budged—63% in 1990, 60% today. Among single 30-year-olds living alone, the homeownership rate actually rose, from 25% to 29%. The typical 30-year-old living at home is male (61%), has never been married (89%), and doesn’t have a college degree (73%). Only 27% have a bachelor’s, compared to 42% of all 30-year-olds. In the early 1990s the profile of those living at home at 30 looked nearly identical: 64% male, 77% never married, and less educated than average. [However], in the ’90s, a greater proportion of young, less educated men would have gotten married and moved out. Among men without a college degree—the group most likely to be living with their parents—the marriage rate has plunged from 58% to 36%.
Related Articles:
Changes in Milestones of Adulthood— US Census data show that btw 2005 and 2023, the fraction of Americans aged 25–34 who completed their education rose from 74% to 83%, but the % “ever married”…
What Explains Low Millennial Home Ownership?— 60% of millennials who are married and living apart from their parents at age 30 own a home, compared to 68% of comparable baby boomers. At 30, 42% of…
Post-1965, measured labor productivity in US construction averaged ~ -0.6% per year, compared to +1.6% economy-wide. GS attributes ~40% of the gap to tighter land-use rules, ~20% to weak innovation, and ~20% to mismeasurement of quality improvements.
Our analysis shows that, within the US, the tightening of land use regulations has accounted for 40% of the gap in productivity growth between construction and the rest of the economy since 1965, and the lack of innovation and quality mismeasurement have each accounted for 20%. Looking across countries, we find that more severe tightening of land use regulations and greater quality mismeasurement account for most of the underperformance of the US construction industry since 1991, relative to other major G10 countries.
60% of millennials who are married and living apart from their parents at age 30 own a home, compared to 68% of comparable baby boomers. At 30, 42% of millennials are married, versus 64% of boomers.
The diagram traces the path from birth to living arrangement at age 30 for Millennials and Boomers. It reveals two junctures where the generations diverged. First, household formation: 31% of Millennials at age 30 still live with parents or roommates, compared to just 19% of Boomers at the same age—a 12-percentage-point gap that immediately disqualifies Millennials from the ownership track. Second, marriage: among those who do form households, only 61% of Millennials are married by age 30, versus 77% of Boomers. These two factors—not leaving the nest and not marrying, at least by age 30—account for the bulk of the 18-point ownership gap (43% for Boomers vs. 25% for Millennials). Part of this comes down to shifting preferences and values, but stretched affordability is also an important driver. Strikingly, conditional on being a married household head, ownership rates are much closer: 68% of married Boomer heads owned at 30, compared to 60% of Millennials—an 8-point gap, far smaller than the headline 18-point difference.
82% of NYC emigrants are not moving to Texas or Florida; they are moving to Long Island and Westchester. Aziz Sunderji suggests that lowering housing costs could help the city retain these workers.
The vast majority of NYC emigrants aren’t fleeing to Texas or Florida—they’re moving to Long Island and Westchester, citing housing as their primary motivation. These are not people who have given up on the New York metro area; they’re people who want more space, want to own rather than rent, or simply want a better home than they can afford in the five boroughs. Interstate movers are a different story. They tend to be younger, more educated, and childless—and they leave primarily for jobs. This cohort is harder to retain through housing policy alone; their departures reflect the pull of opportunity elsewhere rather than the push of inadequate housing. The policy implication is straightforward: New York City cannot compete with booming job markets in other cities or Miami’s climate. The four out of five emigrants from New York City who stay local are, in effect, still rooting for New York—they just need a place to live.
Related Articles:
Can New York Grow Again?— New York City’s population is shrinking due to domestic out-migration. Aziz Sunderji finds NYC’s population declined by 395,000 btw 2014 and 2024. As…
The Clock Now Ticks on Zohran Mamdani— Reihan Salam argues that NYC’s incoming mayor will take office with “the clock on his program already five minutes to midnight,” citing the erosion of the tax…