Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…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
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “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
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences
Buy the Books
  • Macro Roundup
  • About Roundup
  • About Ed Conard
  • Highlights
  • Topics
  • Subscribe
Edward Conard
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • youtube
  • Email
  • Text Message (SMS)
  • Twitter/X
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • WhatsApp Message
Subscribe to Macro Roundup Emails
  • Mentions 130
  • Primary focus 44
Showing 44 database articles primarily about Housing
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove Housing
  • Remove "primary topics only" restriction
  • Remove 'Database'
Show all 7,315 articles
For whatever topics you select (currently: Housing):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

The Distribution of Mortgage Interest Rates Outstanding

AI Summary. 23% of outstanding US mortgages carry an interest rate below 3%, 38% are between 3% and 4%, and only 9% were originated above 6%. With mortgage rates at 7.25%, homeowners lack incentive to move and take on a new mortgage, a key reason housing supply remains low.

Torsten Sløk Apollo
Date Posted:
July 14, 2023
Is Database:
Database

Torsten Sløk notes that low-interest mortgages constrain housing inventory: 23% of mortgages outstanding have an interest rate of less than 3% and 38% are at 3-4%. @apolloglobal

Do low existing mortgage rates keep housing supply constrained?

Core argument: 23% of all outstanding U.S. mortgages carry an interest rate below 3% and 38% fall between 3% and 4%, while only 9% were originated above 6%.

23% percent of all mortgages outstanding have an interest rate below 3%, 38% are between 3% and 4%, and only 9% of all mortgages outstanding were originated with an interest rate above 6%. The bottom line is that homeowners across America do not have any incentive to move and get a new mortgage with mortgage rates currently at 7.25%. This is a key reason why the supply in the housing market continues to be so low.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. 23% of all outstanding U.S. mortgages carry an interest rate below 3% and 38% fall between 3% and 4%, while only 9% were originated above 6%.
  2. With mortgage rates at 7.25%, homeowners across America have no incentive to move and take on a new mortgage.
  3. The low rates on existing mortgages are a key reason housing market supply remains so low.

Related Articles:

  • Inflation Adjusted House Prices 3.8% Below Peak — Inflation-adjusted US house prices are 3.8% below their peak. Historically, periods of poor affordability were followed by strong 5-year real returns on home purchases, while the weakest 5-year real returns came in the runup to and during the housing bubble; unaffordability and low inventory now push prices in opposite directions.
  • The Great Pandemic Mortgage Refinance Boom — Fourteen million mortgages were refinanced during the COVID-era refinance boom: roughly 5m borrowers extracted a total of $430bn in home equity, while 9m refinanced without extracting equity and cut their aggregate annual housing costs by $24bn.
  • Housing
  • GDP
Previous articleJuly 14, 2023Global Liquidity Slowly RebuildingMichael Howell @crossbordercap argues that a 2% point fall in trend inflation is equivalent to a 60% jump in global liquidity which is bullish for risk assets.Next articleJuly 14, 2023Mexico Seeks to Solidify Rank As Top U.S. Trade Partner, Push Further Past ChinaMexico became the top US trading partner earlier this year with 15.4% share of all the goods exported and imported, vs. Canada’s 15.2% and China’s 12%. @DallasFed
Showing 43 database articles primarily about Housing

First-Time Home Buyers Are Older Than Ever

AI Summary. An analysis of the University of Michigan's Panel Study of Income Dynamics, which has tracked 85,000 individuals from 5,000 families since 1968, finds that first-time US home buyers are on average 35 years old — three years older than a decade earlier and eight years older than in the 1970s.

Aziz Sunderji Home Economics
Date Posted:
March 24, 2026
Is Database:
Database

The median age of American first-time home buyers was 35 years old in 2025, up from 32 in 2015.

Are Americans buying their first homes at older ages?

Core argument: First-time U.S. home buyers are on average 35 years old, three years older than a decade ago and eight years older than in the 1970s, according to an analysis of the University of Michigan's Panel Study of Income Dynamics.

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.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. First-time U.S. home buyers are on average 35 years old, three years older than a decade ago and eight years older than in the 1970s, according to an analysis of the University of Michigan's Panel Study of Income Dynamics.
  2. The Panel Study of Income Dynamics has tracked 85,000 individuals from 5,000 families first studied in 1968, allowing observation of when specific people leave home, rent, and first buy a home.
  3. No other U.S. dataset can pinpoint the exact moment an individual transitions from renting to owning, and none extends back as far as the 1960s.

Related Articles:

  • What Explains Low Millennial Home Ownership? — At age 30, 31% of Millennials still live with parents or roommates versus 19% of Boomers, and only 61% of Millennial household heads are married versus 77% of Boomers; the analysis attributes most of the 18-percentage-point home ownership gap (25% versus 43%) to these two differences. Among married household heads, the ownership gap narrows to 8 points.
  • Has Intergenerational Progress Stalled? Income Growth Over Five Generations of Americans — Using post-tax, post-transfer income data, the authors find each of the past four US generations was better off than the prior one, with Millennials' real median household income at ages 36–40 18% above the previous generation's, versus 34% for the Silent Generation, 27% for Baby Boomers, and 16% for Generation X.
  • Why Are Young Adults in the English-Speaking World So Unhappy? — The share of young adults regularly experiencing stress and anger has risen sharply in the US, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand while remaining largely stable elsewhere in the West. Real house prices since 1995 are up 85% in the US and over 200% in the other five countries.
  • Housing
  • GDP
  • Politics

How the Housing Market Split in Two

AI Summary. New US homeowners spent 26% of their income on housing in 2024 versus 20% for existing homeowners, a six-percentage-point gap that is the widest in nearly 40 years. Historically the two groups' costs moved together, with the gap holding at roughly two to four percentage points.

Jess Remington Agglomerations
Date Posted:
March 16, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

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.

How wide is the housing cost gap between new and existing homeowners?

Core argument: New homeowners spent 26% of their income on housing in 2024 versus 20% for existing homeowners, a six-percentage-point gap, the largest in nearly 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).

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. New homeowners spent 26% of their income on housing in 2024 versus 20% for existing homeowners, a six-percentage-point gap, the largest in nearly 40 years.
  2. From 1990 through the aftermath of the Great Recession, housing cost burdens for new and existing homeowners moved together, with the gap holding at two to four percentage points; the current divergence began in earnest in 2022.
  3. At the 2007 housing bubble peak, new homeowners spent a slightly larger 28% of income on housing, but the gap with existing homeowners was four percentage points.

Related Articles:

  • The Cost of Money is Part of the Cost of Living: New Evidence on the Consumer Sentiment Anomaly — Variation in the University of Michigan consumer sentiment index that inflation and unemployment cannot explain is strongly correlated with growth in consumer borrowing costs, such as mortgage and car loan rates. The authors estimate that including interest payments and homeownership costs in the consumer price index would raise measured inflation from 3% to 9%.
  • NAR Says the Typical First-Time Homebuyer Age Was 40 This Year, Up from 33 in 2021—but Is This Accurate? — The National Association of Realtors' mail survey, with a 3.5% response rate, puts the typical first-time homebuyer at age 40, while New York Federal Reserve credit-report data for the same period show an average of 36.2 years and a median of 33. The survey underrepresents buyers under 35 by 17 percentage points.
  • Affordability, Part II — Home ownership functions as the modern marker of full participation in American society, and while most people's incomes have risen faster than the cost of a broad basket of consumer goods, housing has become substantially less affordable over the past generation. The author argues encouraging more housing construction is the most important element of a long-run affordability agenda.
  • Housing
  • GDP
  • Politics

Living With Mom And Dad At 30

AI Summary. Homeownership among married 30-year-olds has changed little (63% to 60%), and rose from 25% to 29% among single 30-year-olds living alone, while 30-year-olds living with parents are mostly male, never-married, and without a college degree. Among men without a college degree, the marriage rate fell from 58% to 36%.

Aziz Sunderji Home Economics
Date Posted:
February 25, 2026
Is Database:
Database

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.

Do falling marriage rates explain more 30-year-olds living with parents?

Core argument: Among men without a college degree, the group most likely to live with their parents, the marriage rate has fallen from 58% to 36%.

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%.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Among men without a college degree, the group most likely to live with their parents, the marriage rate has fallen from 58% to 36%.
  2. Homeownership among married 30-year-olds has barely moved, from 63% in 1990 to 60% today, while among single 30-year-olds living alone it rose from 25% to 29%.
  3. The typical 30-year-old living at home is male (61%), never married (89%), and without a college degree (73%), with only 27% holding a bachelor's versus 42% of all 30-year-olds.

Related Articles:

  • Changes in Milestones of Adulthood — Among US young adults aged 25–34, the share completing a high school or college degree rose 9 percentage points to 83%, while the share ever married fell 18 points to 44% and the share living with a child fell 16 points to 39%. Economic milestones became more common as family formation milestones became less common.
  • What Explains Low Millennial Home Ownership? — At age 30, 31% of Millennials still live with parents or roommates versus 19% of Boomers, and only 61% of Millennial household heads are married versus 77% of Boomers; the analysis attributes most of the 18-percentage-point home ownership gap (25% versus 43%) to these two differences. Among married household heads, the ownership gap narrows to 8 points.
  • Young Adults Are Growing Increasingly Economically Dislocated — The share of young adults who are neither in education, employed, seeking work, nor caring for children is rising in many countries, among both young men and young women. Including stay-at-home parents in the standard "not in education, employment or training" measure obscures this increase.
  • Housing
  • GDP
  • Politics
  • Workforce
    • Family/Marriage

Productivity Stagnation in the Construction Industry: An International Perspective

AI Summary. The authors estimate that tighter land use regulation accounts for 40% of the gap in productivity growth between US construction and the rest of the economy, with weak innovation and quality mismeasurement each accounting for 20%. Across major economies, regulation and mismeasurement explain most of US construction's underperformance.

Elsie Peng Goldman Sachs
Date Posted:
February 3, 2026
Is Database:
Database

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.

Why has construction productivity growth lagged the rest of the economy?

Core argument: The authors estimate that tightening US land use regulations accounts for 40% of the productivity growth gap between construction and the rest of the US economy since 1965.

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.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The authors estimate that tightening US land use regulations accounts for 40% of the productivity growth gap between construction and the rest of the US economy since 1965.
  2. Lack of innovation and quality mismeasurement each account for 20% of the US construction productivity growth gap relative to the rest of the economy since 1965, according to the authors' analysis.
  3. Across countries, the authors find that more severe tightening of land use regulations and greater quality mismeasurement account for most of the US construction industry's underperformance since 1991 relative to other major G10 countries.

Related Articles:

  • Stagnant Construction Productivity Is a Worldwide Problem — Construction labor productivity has been roughly flat or declining since the 1990s across most of Western Europe, Japan, and Korea, a pattern consistent with the flat US trend. Countries often held up as models — Sweden and Japan for prefabrication, China for infrastructure — show little or unremarkable construction productivity improvement.
  • Five Decades of Decline: U.S. Construction Sector Productivity — U.S. construction labor productivity in 2023 was essentially unchanged from 1948, with real output per worker in 2020 more than 30% below its 1970 level, even as aggregate U.S. labor productivity tripled between 1950 and 2020. Construction accounted for about 4.5% of U.S. GDP in 2024.
  • The Strange and Awful Path of Productivity in the U.S. Construction Sector — U.S. construction sector labor productivity and total factor productivity grew faster than the whole economy in the 1950s and 1960s, then fell, ending 2020 below their 1950 levels while economywide labor productivity and total factor productivity were 290% and 230% higher. Construction labor productivity fell about 1% a year from 1970 to 2020.
  • Housing
  • GDP
  • Productivity

What Explains Low Millennial Home Ownership?

AI Summary. At age 30, 31% of Millennials still live with parents or roommates versus 19% of Boomers, and only 61% of Millennial household heads are married versus 77% of Boomers; the analysis attributes most of the 18-percentage-point home ownership gap (25% versus 43%) to these two differences. Among married household heads, the ownership gap narrows to 8 points.

Aziz Sunderji Home Economics
Date Posted:
January 28, 2026
Is Database:
Database

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.

Do delayed household formation and marriage explain lower young-adult homeownership?

Core argument: Home ownership at age 30 is 25% for Millennials versus 43% for Boomers, an 18-point gap the analysis attributes largely to differences in household formation and marriage.

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.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Home ownership at age 30 is 25% for Millennials versus 43% for Boomers, an 18-point gap the analysis attributes largely to differences in household formation and marriage.
  2. Among Millennials at age 30, 31% still live with parents or roommates, compared with 19% of Boomers, a 12-point gap that excludes them from the ownership track.
  3. Among married household heads, ownership at age 30 is 60% for Millennials versus 68% for Boomers, an 8-point gap far smaller than the headline 18-point difference.

Related Articles:

  • Has Intergenerational Progress Stalled? Income Growth Over Five Generations of Americans — Using post-tax, post-transfer income data, the authors find each of the past four US generations was better off than the prior one, with Millennials' real median household income at ages 36–40 18% above the previous generation's, versus 34% for the Silent Generation, 27% for Baby Boomers, and 16% for Generation X.
  • NAR Says the Typical First-Time Homebuyer Age Was 40 This Year, Up from 33 in 2021—but Is This Accurate? — The National Association of Realtors' mail survey, with a 3.5% response rate, puts the typical first-time homebuyer at age 40, while New York Federal Reserve credit-report data for the same period show an average of 36.2 years and a median of 33. The survey underrepresents buyers under 35 by 17 percentage points.
  • The Eldest Millennials Had the Same Fertility as the Youngest Baby Boomers — Completed fertility for US women aged 41–44 has been stable for more than two decades, with the large decline having occurred earlier; among those with at least one native-born parent it averaged 1.88 children versus 1.87. What changed is timing: 30-year-old women averaged 1.34 children versus 0.98.
  • Housing
  • GDP
  • Politics

Why Do People Leave New York City?

AI Summary. Most people leaving New York City move to nearby suburbs such as Long Island and Westchester, citing housing—more space, ownership, or a better home than they can afford—as their main motivation. Those leaving for other states tend to be younger, more educated, and childless, and move primarily for jobs.

Aziz Sunderji Home Economics
Date Posted:
December 12, 2025
Is Database:
Database

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.

Why do most people leaving the city move to nearby suburbs?

Core argument: Four out of five people leaving New York City stay within the metro area, moving to places like Long Island and Westchester and citing housing as their primary motivation.

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.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Four out of five people leaving New York City stay within the metro area, moving to places like Long Island and Westchester and citing housing as their primary motivation.
  2. Local movers from New York City are seeking more space, homeownership rather than renting, or a better home than they can afford in the five boroughs.
  3. Interstate movers from New York City tend to be younger, more educated, and childless, and they leave primarily for jobs, making them harder to retain through housing policy alone.

Related Articles:

  • Can New York Grow Again? — New York City's population has historically balanced natural growth and international inflows against domestic outflows, but outflows have come to dominate, leaving the city shrinking at its fastest pace since the 1970s. Its contraction of more than 3% is twice that of Philadelphia, the next-fastest-shrinking large US city.
  • The Clock Now Ticks on Zohran Mamdani — New York City's share of the nation's millionaires has fallen 30% since 2010 and major banks have expanded in Dallas and Atlanta as finance's share of city employment shrank. The author argues a proposed city tax plan would leave remaining high earners paying 60% of taxes.
  • As New Jobs In Finance Dry Up, New York City’s Fiscal Model Is Wilting — New York state's share of US taxpayers reporting over $1m in income fell from 12.7% in 2010 to 8.7% in 2022, and the Citizens Budget Commission estimates state and city income tax receipts from that group would have been $13bn higher had the share held. Job growth has concentrated in lower-paid health care and social assistance.
  • Housing
  • GDP
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms