Affordability Pyramid Shows 94 Million Households Cannot Buy a $400,000 Home 

2025-03-31T09:20:54-05:00

NAHB recently released its 2025 Priced-Out Analysis, highlighting the housing affordability challenge. While previous posts discussed the impacts of rising home prices and interest rates on affordability, this post focuses on the related U.S. housing affordability pyramid. The pyramid reveals that 70% of households (94 million) cannot afford a $400,000 home, while the estimated median price of a new home is around $460,000 in 2025. The housing affordability pyramid illustrates the number of households able to purchase a home at various price steps. Each step represents the number of households that can only afford homes within that specific price range. The largest share of households falls within the first step, where homes are priced under $200,000. As home prices increase, fewer and fewer households can afford the next price level, with the highest-priced homes—those over $2 million—having the smallest number of potential buyers. Housing affordability remains a critical challenge for households with income at the lower end of the spectrum. The pyramid is based on income thresholds and underwriting standards. Under these assumptions, the minimum income required to purchase a $200,000 home at the mortgage rate of 6.5% is $61,487. In 2025, about 52.87 million households in the U.S. are estimated to have incomes no more than that threshold and, therefore, can only afford to buy homes priced up to $200,000. These 52.87 million households form the bottom step of the pyramid. Of the remaining households who can afford a home priced at $200,000, 23.53 million can only afford to pay a top price of somewhere between $200,000 and $300,000. These households make up the second step on the pyramid. Each subsequent step narrows further, reflecting the shrinking number of households that can afford increasingly expensive homes. It is worthwhile to compare the number of households that can afford homes at various price levels and the number of owner-occupied homes available in those ranges (excludes homes built-for-rent), as shown in Figure 2. For example, while around 53 million households can afford a home priced at $200,000 or less, there are only 22 million owner-occupied homes valued in this price range. This trend continues in the $200,000 to $300,000 price range, where the number of households that can afford homes is much higher than the number of housing units in that range. These imbalances show a shortage of affordable housing. Discover more from Eye On Housing Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Affordability Pyramid Shows 94 Million Households Cannot Buy a $400,000 Home 2025-03-31T09:20:54-05:00

Lower Mortgage Rates, Better Affordability

2025-03-24T11:19:31-05:00

As housing affordability remains a critical challenge across the country, mortgage rates continue to play a central role in shaping homebuying power. Mortgage rates stayed elevated throughout 2023 and early 2024. Recent data, however, shows a modest decline in mortgage rates. Even slight declines can have a significant impact on housing affordability, pricing more households back into the market. New NAHB Priced-Out Estimates show how home price increases affect housing affordability in 2025. This post presents details regarding how interest rates affect the number of households that can afford a median priced new home. At the beginning of 2025, with the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate at 7%, around 31.5 million households could afford a median-priced home at $459,826. This requires a household income of $147,433 by the front-end underwriting standards[1]. In contrast, if the average mortgage rates had remained at the recent peak of 7.62% in October 2023, only 28.7 million households would have qualified. This 62-basis point decline has effectively priced 2.8 million additional households into the market, expanding homeownership opportunities. The table below shows how affordability changes with each 25 basis-point increase in interest rates, from 3.75% to 8.25% for a median-priced home at $459,826. The minimum required income with a 3.75% mortgage rate is $110,270. In contrast, a mortgage rate of 8.25%, increases the required income to $163,068, pushing millions of households out of the market. As rates climb higher, the priced-out effect diminishes. When interest rates increase from 6.5% to 6.75%, around 1.13 million households are priced out of the market, unable to meet the higher income threshold required to afford the increased monthly payments. However, an increase from 7.75% to 8% would squeeze about 850,000 households out of the market. This exemplifies that when interest rates are relatively low, a 25 basis-point increase has a much larger impact. It is because it affects a broader portion of households in the middle of the income distribution. For example, if the mortgage interest rate decreases from 5.25% to 5%, around 1.5 million more households will qualify the mortgage for the new homes at the median price of $459,826. This indicates lower interest rates can unlock homeownership opportunities for a substantial number of households. [1] . The sum of monthly payment, including the principal amount, loan interest, property tax, homeowners’ property and private mortgage insurance premiums (PITI), is no more than 28 percent of monthly gross household income. Discover more from Eye On Housing Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Lower Mortgage Rates, Better Affordability2025-03-24T11:19:31-05:00

Fed Remains in Wait and See Mode

2025-03-19T16:19:26-05:00

In a widely anticipated move, the Federal Reserve remained on pause with respect to rate cuts at the conclusion of its March meeting, maintaining the federal funds rate in the 4.25% to 4.5% range. While the central bank acknowledged that the economy remains solid, it emphasized a data- and policy-dependent approach to future monetary policy decisions due to increased uncertainty. According to Chair Powell, the Fed “is not in any hurry” to enact policy change and is well positioned to wait to make future interest rate moves. However, in a small dovish step, the Fed slowed the pace of its balance sheet reduction, but only for Treasuries. The Treasury security runoff will be reduced from $25 billion a month to $5 billion. The mortgage-backed security run-off process will remain at a $35 billion a monthly rate. Chair Powell stated that the change was not a signal of broader economic issues and was just a technical adjustment to the long-run goal of balance sheet reduction. Although the Fed did not directly address ongoing trade policy debates (and particularly trade and tariff details expected on April 2) and their economic implications, it reaffirmed that future monetary policy assessments would consider “a wide range of information, including readings on labor market conditions, inflation pressures, and inflation expectations, and financial and international developments.” With respect to prices, the Fed’s March statement noted that “inflation remains somewhat elevated.” For example, the CPI is at a 2.8% year-over-year growth rate. Shelter inflation, while improving as noted by Chair Powell, continues to run at an elevated 4.2% annual growth rate, significantly above the CPI. These costs are driven by challenges such as financing costs, regulatory burdens, rising insurance costs, and the structural housing deficit. The March Fed statement highlighted the central bank’s dual mandate, noting its ongoing assessment of the “balance of risks.”  Crucially, the Fed reiterated its “strong commitment to support maximum employment and returning inflation to its 2 percent objective.” The Fed also published its updated Summary of Economic Projections (SEP). The central bank reduced its GDP outlook for 2025 from 2.1% growth to just 1.7% (measured as percentage change from the fourth quarter of the prior year to the fourth quarter of the year indicated). Policy uncertainly likely played a role for this adjustment. The Fed made only marginal changes to its forecast for unemployment, pointing to a 4.3% jobless rate for the fourth quarter of 2025. The Fed did lift its inflation outlook, increasing its forecast for Core PCE inflation from 2.5% for the year to 2.8%. Forecasters, including NAHB, have lifted inflation estimates for 2025 due to tariffs, although tariffs may only produce a one-off shift in the price level rather than a permanent increase for the inflation rate. Nonetheless, Chair Powell noted that tariffs have already affected inflation forecasts for 2025. The Fed’s SEP also indicated that the Fed may cut twice this year, placing the federal funds rate below 4% during the fourth quarter of 2025. However, those FOMC members who saw less than two rate cuts this year were more likely to forecast no rate cuts at all for 2025. Looking over the long run, the SEP projections suggest that the terminal rate for the federal funds rate will be 3%, implying six total twenty-five basis point cuts in the future as rates normalize. This is lower than our forecast, which suggests a higher long-run inflation risk path and a terminal rate near 3.5%. A lower federal funds rate means lower AD&C loan rates for builders, which can help with housing supply and hold back shelter inflation. Discover more from Eye On Housing Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Fed Remains in Wait and See Mode2025-03-19T16:19:26-05:00

Home Building Employment across States and Congressional Districts in 2023

2025-03-18T08:15:59-05:00

As the number of housing units under construction peaked in 2023, the industry set another record employing close to 11.4 million people, including self-employed workers. NAHB estimates that out of this total, 4.7 million people worked in residential construction, accounting for 2.9% of the U.S. employed civilian labor force. Home building in the Mountain Division, as well as in Vermont and Florida, stand out as generating a significantly higher share of local jobs, with residential construction generating more than 5% of all jobs in Idaho and Montana. NAHB’s analysis also identifies congressional districts where home building accounts for particularly high employment levels and share of local jobs. Not surprisingly, the most populous state—California—also has the most residential construction workers. Over 640,000 California residents worked in home building in 2023, accounting for 3.4% of the state employed labor force. Fast-growing Florida comes in second with 468,000 residential construction workers. The state stands out for registering one of the fastest growing populations since the start of the pandemic, which undoubtedly boosted housing and construction workforce demand. Florida’s large stock of vacation and seasonal housing further boosts demand for residential construction workers. As a result, in Florida, residential construction workers account for a relatively high 4.4% of the employed labor. Even though this share is well above the national average (2.9%), it is significantly lower than in 2006, when Florida registered the highest share among all 50 states and the District of Columbia, at 6.5%. Similar to Florida, fast-growing states with a high prevalence of seasonal, vacation homes top the list of states with the highest share of residential construction workers in 2023. Three states in the Mountain Division - Idaho, Montana, and Utah - take the top spots on the list with 5.5%, 5.1% and 4.9% of the employed labor force working in home building. Vermont is next on the list with a share of 4.6%.   As of 2023, the average congressional district has about 10,800 residents working in residential construction, but that number is often significantly higher. In Idaho’s 1st Congressional District, over 30,000 residents are in home building and Utah’s 2nd Congressional District has over 25,000 residents working in home building.  Eight other congressional districts have over 20,000 residents working in residential construction – Florida’s 26th, Utah’s 4th, Idaho’s 2nd, Florida’s 17th, Arizona’s 3rd, Utah’s 1st, Florida’s 28th, and California’s 29th.  By design, Congressional districts are drawn to represent roughly the same number of people. So generally, large numbers of residential construction (RC) workers translate into high shares of RC workers in their district employed labor forces.  Idaho’s 1st tops this list as well, registering the highest share of residential construction workers in the employed labor force, 6.4%. Florida’s 17th is a close second with 6.3% of the district labor force employed in home building. Next on the list are two Mountain division districts – Montana’s 1st and Utah’s 2nd – with shares of 5.8%, followed by two Florida’s districts – 19th (5.7%) and 26th (5.6%). California’s 29th (5.4%) and 39th (5.3%) also register shares far exceeding the national average of 2.9%.    At the other end of the spectrum there are several districts that contain parts of large urban areas: the District of Columbia, the 12th of New York, located in New York City, Pennsylvania’s 3rd that includes areas of the city of Philadelphia, Georgia’s 5th that includes most of Atlanta, and among others, Illinois’s 7th and 9th, covering parts of Chicago. Most residents in these urban districts tend to work in professional, scientific, and technical services. The District of Columbia stands out for having the lowest number of RC workers, with just 1,400 residing in the district. At the same time, it has a disproportionally large share of public administration workers. The 12th District of New York and the 7th District of Illinois are home to a very large group of finance and insurance workers. Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania’s 2nd, more than a third of residents work in health care and educational services.  The NAHB residential construction employment estimates include self-employed workers. Counting self-employed is particularly important in the home building industry since they traditionally make up a larger share of the labor force than in the U.S. total workforce.   The new NAHB home building employment estimates only include workers directly employed by the industry and do not count jobs created in related industries– such as design and architecture, furniture making, building materials, landscaping, etc.  As a result, the estimates underestimate the overall impact of home building on local employment.  Discover more from Eye On Housing Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Home Building Employment across States and Congressional Districts in 20232025-03-18T08:15:59-05:00

How Rising Costs Affect Home Affordability

2025-03-10T09:19:44-05:00

Housing affordability remains a critical issue, with 74.9% of U.S. households unable to afford a median-priced new home in 2025, according to NAHB’s latest analysis. With a median price of $459,826 and a 30-year mortgage rate of 6.5%, this translates to around 100.6 million households priced out of the market, even before accounting for further increases in home prices or interest rates. A $1,000 increase in the median price of new homes would price an additional 115,593 households out of the market. The 2024 priced-out estimates for all states and the District of Columbia and over 300 metropolitan statistical areas are shown in the interactive map below. It highlights the growing housing affordability challenges across the United States. In 23 states and the District of Columbia, over 80% of households are priced out of the median-priced new home market. This indicates a significant disconnect between rising home prices and household incomes. Maine stands out as the state with the highest share of households (91.2%) unable to afford the state’s median new home price of $682,223. High-cost states such as Connecticut and Rhode Island follow closely, with 88.3% and 87.8% of households, respectively, struggling to afford new homes. Even in states with relatively lower median new home prices, affordability remains a major concern. For example, in Mississippi, where the median home price is $275,333, 70.2% of households still find these new homes out of reach. Meanwhile, Delaware, the state with better affordability in the analysis, has a median new home price of $373,666. However, around 58.2% of households in Delaware still struggle to afford a new home. Even modest price increases, such as an additional $1,000, could push thousands more households from affording these median priced new homes. For instance, in Texas, such an increase could price out over 11,000 households. It also shows the 2025 priced-out estimates for over 300 metropolitan statistical areas. The analysis estimates how many households in each metro area earn enough income to qualify for mortgages on median-priced new homes. In high-cost areas like the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA metro area, where new homes largely target high-income Silicon Valley residents, only 10% of all households meet the minimum income threshold of $437,963 required to qualify for a loan on a median priced new home. In contrast, in more affordable metro areas like Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ, where the median new home price is $150,893, nearly two-thirds of households can afford a median priced new home. While higher home prices generally result in higher monthly mortgage payments and higher income thresholds, the relationship between home prices and affordability is not always linear. Factors like property taxes and insurance payments can also significantly impact monthly housing costs, adding complexity to affordability calculations. The affordability of new homes and together with the population size of a metro area, significantly influence the priced-out impact of a $1,000 increase in new home prices. In metro areas where new homes are already unaffordable to most households, the effect of such an increase tends to be small. For instance, in the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA metro area, an additional $1,000 increase to the home price affects only 259 households, as only 10% of all households could afford such expensive new homes in the first place. Here, the additional price increase only affects a narrow share of high- income households at the upper end of the income distribution, where affordability is already stretched.In contrast, metro areas, where new homes are more broadly affordable, experience a larger priced-out effect. A $1,000 increase in the median new home price affects a larger share of households in the “thicker part” of the income distribution. For example, in the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX metro area, a $1,000 increase in new home price would disqualify 2,882 households from affording a median-priced new home. This is the largest priced-out effect among all metro areas, driven by the combination of relatively moderate home prices and a substantial population base. More details, including priced out estimates for every state and over 300 metropolitan areas, and a description of the underlying methodology, are available in the full study. Discover more from Eye On Housing Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

How Rising Costs Affect Home Affordability2025-03-10T09:19:44-05:00

Inadequate Shelter: Millions of U.S. Homes Fail to Meet Standards

2025-03-05T09:16:41-06:00

In 2023, nearly 6.45 million homes, around 5% of U.S housing stock, were classified as inadequate according to the American Housing Survey (AHS). Of these, 1.65 million homes were classified as severely inadequate, showing significant concerns over housing quality. While this reveals ongoing issues in nation’s housing conditions, it signals probable market growth for remodeling and home improvements in the year ahead. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines physical adequacy based on whether a home meets the basic standard of “a decent home and a suitable living environment”. Homes are severely inadequate if they exhibit major deficiencies, such as exposed wiring, lack of electricity, missing hot or cold running water, or the absence of heating or cooling systems. Additionally, homes with at least five significant structural problems such as water leaks, large open cracks or holes in the floor also belong to this category.  Moderately inadequate homes have three or four significant structural issues, or have problems such as incomplete kitchen facilities, lack of vented heating equipment, or prolonged toilet breakdowns. Housing inadequacy has remained a persistent issue over the past decade, shown in Figure 1.  In 2023, around 6.5 million households lived in moderately or severely inadequate housing. While the total number of inadequate homes declined slightly from 6.9 million in 2015 to 6.0 million in 2019, it rebounded to 6.7 million in 2021 and remained elevated in 2023.  The majority, around 4.8 million, of inadequate homes were moderately inadequate, while 1.65 million households lived in severely inadequate conditions in 2023. The share of inadequate homes varies significantly by the age of the home (Figure 2). Older homes have higher rates of inadequacy. Homes built before 1940 have the highest inadequacy rate at 9%, followed by those built between 1940 and 1959 at 7%. While housing units from 1960 to 1979 show a moderate inadequacy rate of 5%, they account for the largest number of inadequate homes, with 1.2 million classified as moderately inadequate and 465,000 as severely inadequate in 2023. In contrast, newer homes (1980-Present) have lower inadequacy rates with the share steadily declining from 4% for homes built between 1980 and 1999 to 3% for those constructed from 2000 to the present. Geographically, inadequate housing is most concentrated in smaller metro areas. Around 50.4% of moderately inadequate homes (2.4 million units) and 43.6% of severely inadequate homes (720,000 units) are in these areas in 2023. This trend is likely driven by aging housing stock and lower household income compared to major metro areas. However, major metro areas still have a substantial share of inadequate homes, with 29.7% of moderately inadequate (1.4 million) and 38.2% of severely inadequate units (631,000). Non-metro areas have the lowest total numbers, (953,000 moderately inadequate and 720,000 severely inadequate homes), though challenges persist. In 2023, around 6.45 million households lived in inadequate housing, with more renters (3.5 million) than owners (2.8 million). Housing cost burdens varied greatly among these two groups: Among those households in inadequate homes, 1.9 million owners spent less than 30% of their income on housing, compared to 1.6 million renters. It suggests that many homeowners living in inadequate housing may indeed have the financial capacity to improve their housing conditions if they choose to do so. In contrast, renters in inadequate housing face greater financial constraints, with 1.1 million spending more than 50% of their income on housing, more than double the 480,000 cost-burdened owners. This disparity highlights the challenges renters are facing, including limited affordable housing options and a lack of control over property conditions. Discover more from Eye On Housing Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Inadequate Shelter: Millions of U.S. Homes Fail to Meet Standards2025-03-05T09:16:41-06:00

Construction Self-Employment Stable at 23%

2025-02-18T08:17:30-06:00

The share of self-employed in construction remains just under 23%, a new post-pandemic norm. While this is significantly higher than an economy-wide average of 10% of the employed labor force, for construction, these rates are historically low. Across the nation, construction self-employment rates range from 38% in Maine to 13% in Nevada. As of 2023, close to 2.6 million of workers employed in construction are self-employed, according to the latest American Community Survey (ACS). While the industry’s payroll employment surpassed the historic highs of the home building boom of the mid-2000s, the number of self-employed remains below the peak of 2006 when over a quarter of the construction labor force was self-employed. Declining self-employment rates in construction coincide with the declining share of tradesmen in construction and potentially reflect structural changes in the construction labor force, such as a shift towards larger construction firms that are better equipped to invest into new technologies and absorb higher overhead costs. Partially, the downward trend in construction self-employment rates since the Housing Bust reflects the counter-cyclical nature of self-employment. Under normal circumstances, self-employment rates rise during an economic downturn and fall during an expansion. This presumably reflects a common practice among builders to downsize payrolls when construction activity is declining. In contrast, builders and trade contractors offer better terms for employment and attract a larger pool of laborers to be employees rather than self-employed when workflow is steady and rising.   Potentially reflecting the counter-cyclical nature of construction self-employment, the current self-employment rates are 3.4 percentage points lower compared to the peak rate of the Great Recession. For similar reasons, persistent labor shortages that plagued the industry during the last decade likely have contributed to the decline in self-employment rates. Ostensibly, to minimize construction delays, builders and trade contractors would be willing to offer better payroll terms to secure employees when finding experienced craftsmen is a challenge. Since the 2020 ACS data are not reliable due to the data collection issues experienced during the early lockdown stages of the pandemic, we can only compare the pre-pandemic 2019 and post-pandemic 2021-2022 data (hence the omitted 2020 data in the charts above). As a result, it is not clear what accounted for the post-pandemic bump in self-employment. One answer is that   self-employed workers in construction managed to remain employed during the short COVID-19 recession or recovered their jobs faster afterwards, compared to private payroll workers. Another possibility is that the booming residential construction sector attracted self-employed workers from other more vulnerable or slow recovering industries, including commercial construction. Examining cross-state variation provides additional insights into construction self-employment rates. The New England states and Montana register some of the highest self-employment shares. In Maine, 38% of construction workers are self-employed. The share is similarly high in Vermont where more than a third of workers are self-employed, 36%. In Connecticut and Rhode Island, 28% of workers are self-employed. In Montana, the share is 30%. The New England states are where it takes longer to build a house.  Because of the short construction season and longer times to complete a project, specialty trade contractors in these states have fewer workers on their payrolls. The 2022 Economic Census data show that specialty trade contractors in Vermont and Maine have some of the smallest payrolls in the nation with five workers on average. Only contractors in Montana have smaller payrolls, averaging less than 5 workers. At the same time, the national average is over nine workers. As a result, independent entrepreneurs in New England and Montana tend to complete a greater share of work, which helps explain the high self-employment shares in these states. The Mountain division has states with the highest and lowest self-employment rates simultaneously. Montana and Colorado, where more than a quarter of workers are self-employed, round up the list of states with the highest self-employment rates. At the same time, Nevada registers one of the lowest (13%) self-employment rates in construction and takes the place at the opposite end of the list. Only Washington, DC has a lower share of self-employed, 9%. The substantial differences likely reflect a predominance of home building in Montana and Colorado and a higher prevalence of commercial construction, that has larger payroll employment and, presumably, relies less heavily on self-employed. Discover more from Eye On Housing Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Construction Self-Employment Stable at 23%2025-02-18T08:17:30-06:00

Fringe Benefits Add 18% to Home Building Payroll

2025-02-03T08:19:59-06:00

In the home building industry, fringe benefits add an additional 18% to employees’ compensation on top of payroll, according to NAHB’s analysis of the latest 2022 Economic Census data. The rates vary across residential construction sub-sectors with single-family and multifamily general contractors contributing an average of 20% on top of payroll. Fringe benefits in residential remodeling and for-sale building average 19% and 16%, respectively. Total fringe benefits consist of legally required and voluntarily provided benefits. The legally required component includes employers’ contribution to Social Security and Medicare, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation insurance, and state-mandated temporary disability and other state-specific contributions. Since these benefits are mandatory by law, it may seem counter-intuitive to view them as “fringe” benefits. Nevertheless, the Economic Census counts them as “legally required fringe benefits” paid on top of payroll. In 2022, legally required fringe benefits contributed by single-family general contractors and remodelers amounted to an additional 13% on top of payroll. The average rate for multifamily general contractors and for-sale builders was 10% and 9%, respectively. Averaged across the four subsectors of home building, legally required benefits amounted to just under 12% of payroll. Voluntarily provided fringe benefits include expenditures paid by employers for life insurance premiums, pension plans, insurance premiums on hospital and medical plans, welfare plans, and union negotiated benefits. Other perks provided by employers, such as paid holidays, vacations, sick pay, bonuses, and jury pay, may seem like valuable “fringe” benefits but are technically counted in payroll. In 2022, voluntary fringe benefits provided by multifamily general contractors amounted to an additional 10% on top of payroll.  In the case of single-family contractors and for-sale builders, these benefits added 7% to compensation. The rate was lower for residential remodelers, where voluntary benefits amounted to 6% of payroll. Averaged across the four sub-sectors of home building, the voluntarily provided benefits approached an added cost of 7% on top of payroll. In addition to the four residential construction subsectors discussed above, the home building industry also includes land developers and specialty trade contractors (STC). Since the Economic Census does not differentiate between residential and non-residential specialty trade contractors, this combined subsector is not included in the home building chart above. Nevertheless, the latest Economic Census shows that the fringe benefit rates were highest among specialty trade contractors – 28%, equally split between legally required and voluntary. Among other things, the differences in the fringe benefit rates reflect variations in state-mandated regulations, size and legal form of companies, involvement in federally funded projects, unionization of workers, and employee participation rates in health and pension plans. For example, depending on the legal form of organization, accounting principles are different and can affect the estimated fringe benefit rates. For corporations, payroll includes compensation of executives, but for unincorporated businesses, such as individual proprietorships and partnerships, payroll excludes profit and other compensation of proprietors or partners. In addition, partners and proprietors may not be ineligible for the complete benefits package they offer to employees, also affecting the estimated fringe benefit rates for their businesses. The data used in this analysis come from the Economic Census available only every five years. The Economic Census, like many other federal statistics programs, collects data only on establishments with payroll employees. In construction, an establishment operates continually at a single physical location but typically manages more than one project or job. A large building company may operate at more than one location but would file a separate report for each location or establishment. Discover more from Eye On Housing Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Fringe Benefits Add 18% to Home Building Payroll2025-02-03T08:19:59-06:00

Moving Out of Parental Homes is On Hold

2025-01-20T08:18:45-06:00

The worst on record rental affordability conditions, depleted “excess” savings of the pandemic era, and high mortgage rates halted the post-pandemic trend of young adults moving out of parental homes. The share of adults ages 25-34 living with parents or parents-in-law hovered just above 19% in 2023, stagnant from 2022, according to NAHB’s analysis of the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS). While this percentage is the second lowest since 2011, the share remains elevated by historical standards. Regionally, Southern and Northeastern states register some of the highest shares of young adults remaining in parental homes. Traditionally, young adults ages 25 to 34 make up around half of all first-time homebuyers. Consequently, the number and share of young adults in this age group that choose to stay with their parents, or parents-in-law, has profound implications for household formation, housing demand, and the housing market. The current share of 19.2% translates into 8.5 million young adults living in homes of their parents or parents-in-law. In contrast, less than 12% of young adults ages 25 to 34, or 4.6 million, lived with parents in 2000. The share peaked in 2017-2018 at 22% when the ACS recorded over 9.7 million adults ages 25 to 34 living with parents. While the national average share hovers around 19.2%, more than a quarter of young adults ages 25-34 remain in parental homes in California (26.5%), New Jersey (26.3%), and Hawaii (25.2%). Delaware (23.2%), Maryland (22.7%), Florida (22.4%) and New York (21.8%) are next on the list. At the opposite end of the spectrum are states with less than one in ten young adults living with parents. The fast-growing North Dakota records the nation’s lowest share of 5%, while the neighboring South Dakota registers 7%. In the District of Columbia, known for its relatively stable job market, less than 7.5% of young adults live with their parents. The cluster of central US states completes the nation’s list with the lowest percentages of young adults remaining in parental homes – Nebraska (8.4%), Iowa (8.5), and Wyoming (9.6%). The elevated shares of young adults living with parents in high-cost coastal areas point to prohibitively expensive housing costs as one of the reasons for keeping young adults in parental homes. The statistical analysis confirms that states with higher shares of cost-burdened owners and renters living in unaffordable homes (i.e., paying 30 percent or more of income on housing) register higher shares of young adults living with parents. In particular, renters’ housing cost burdensexplain half of the cross-state variation in the shares of young adults living in parental homes. Multigeneration living, which is more prevalent among ethnic households, can also contribute to the elevated shares of young adults living with parents. This can be particularly relevant in the Southern states with higher shares of Hispanic households. However, the statistical analysis shows that while the correlation is positive, prevalence of Hispanic households does not carry any additional explanatory power once housing cost burdens are accounted for. Discover more from Eye On Housing Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Moving Out of Parental Homes is On Hold2025-01-20T08:18:45-06:00

U.S. Trade Deficit: Balancing Act Still Yet to Appear

2024-12-16T08:16:30-06:00

The U.S. trade deficit in goods was at $112 billion in the month of October, according to the Census Bureau’s Foreign Trade data1. Compared to last year, the level has increased 13.3%, rising from $99 billion. Total goods imported was valued at $289 billion while the exports were valued at $177 billion in October. The import value represents the price paid for goods at the foreign port, excluding U.S. import duties, freight, insurance, and other charges. This value includes all merchandise, whether it is sold directly into the U.S. market or re-exported to another country. The export value represents the selling price of the goods plus inland/domestic freight, insurance and other charges at the U.S. port, excluding post-export charges. As shown above, the U.S. trade deficit in goods has continued to climb higher since 2014 when it was $59 billion. Focusing on October 2024 data, the Census reports that of the 229 countries the U.S. traded goods in October, the U.S. had a trade deficit with 102 (meaning the U.S. imported more than exported to specific country). The countries that the U.S. had the largest trade deficit with in October were China ($28.0 billion), Mexico ($16.4 billion) and Vietnam ($11.6 billion). Shown below are five countries that have the highest average trade deficit with the U.S. since 2014. Tracking the dashed trend lines above, the trade deficit with China has moved lower since peaking in 2018. Despite this recent decline, the trade deficit between China and U.S. remains significantly higher than any other country. In October, it was almost double the size of the deficit with Mexico, the second largest. The trade deficit with Mexico and the U.S. has trended upward as trade policy in the U.S. has shifted away from China. The total value of imports from Mexico in October was $45.5 billion, while imports from China stood at $41.5 billion. There also exists a notable increase in the trade deficit with Vietnam. In January 2014, the level stood at only $2 billion, well below other main exporters to the U.S. like Japan and Germany. This level has only continued to rise, caused again by a shift away from trade with China. The top countries in October that the U.S. held a trade surplus with were Netherlands ($4.5 billion), United Kingdom ($1.7 billion) and the Hong Kong ($1.6 billion). While these were the highest surplus counties in October, the values are substantially lower than the trade deficit levels shown above. The graph below displays five countries that the U.S. has the largest average trade surplus with over the past 10 years. The surplus with the Netherlands has jumped far higher than any nation since 2022. Trade with Hong Kong historically had the highest until 2018-2019. While the U.S. has consistently held a trade deficit since 2014, the composition of the deficit is continuing to undergo a transition. Despite a U.S. trade policy that is shifting away from China, the trade deficit with China remains by far the largest the U.S. has with any country. Expansion of trade with Mexico and Vietnam has a seen a rise in trade deficits with both nations, as the U.S. attempts to decouple with China. The data shows that both economies are still very connected, with the U.S. remaining a top destination of exportation from China and U.S. consumers needs for goods from China. The data discussed in this blog are not seasonally adjusted and refer to goods only, this blog does not discuss the trade of services between the U.S. and other nations Discover more from Eye On Housing Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

U.S. Trade Deficit: Balancing Act Still Yet to Appear2024-12-16T08:16:30-06:00