MONEY real estate

The 30 Most Livable Cities for Baby Boomers

Wisconsin State Capitol and the State Street pedestrian mall, Madison, Wisconsin
Walter Bibikow—Getty Images/age fotostock Wisconsin State Capitol and the State Street pedestrian mall, Madison, Wisconsin

Apparently, Wisconsin is the place to go for an active, enjoyable life after age 50. At least, that’s what a new livability index from AARP says.

Apparently, Wisconsin is the place to go for an active, enjoyable life after age 50. At least, that’s what a new livability index from AARP says. The index ranks cities, down to the neighborhood, based on several factors that make an area desirable to the 50-plus population. AARP broke the rankings into three population categories (10 cities in each), and there are six Wisconsin cities on the list, more than any other state. (Minnesota came in second with four.)

Labeling a city “most livable” is a pretty subjective assessment — people who love New York may not be crazy about living in Fargo, N.D., for example, but both are on this list. AARP tried to find cities that included many of the factors important to Americans aged 50 years and older. The rankings are based on analysis by the AARP Public Policy Institute and other experts of 60 community factors in seven categories: housing, neighborhood, transportation, environment, health, engagement and opportunity. The analysis included responses to a national survey of 4,500 Americans in that age group about what’s most important for them to have in their communities. Each of the cities on this list stands out in many of the 60 factors AARP analyzed, making them suitable for residents with a variety of tastes.

Large (Population 500,000 and Higher)

  1. San Francisco
  2. Boston
  3. Seattle
  4. Milwaukee
  5. New York City
  6. Philadelphia
  7. Portland, Oregon
  8. Denver
  9. Washington, D.C.
  10. Baltimore

Medium (Population 100,000 to 500,000)

  1. Madison, Wis.
  2. St. Paul, Minn.
  3. Sioux Falls, S.D.
  4. Rochester, Minn.
  5. Minneapolis
  6. Arlington,Va.
  7. Cedar Rapids, Iowa
  8. Lincoln, Neb.
  9. Fargo, N.D.
  10. Cambridge, Mass.

Small (Population 25,000 to 100,000)

  1. La Crosse, Wis.
  2. Fitchburg, Wis.
  3. Bismarck, N.D.
  4. Sun Prairie, Wis.
  5. Duluth, Minn.
  6. Union City, N.J.
  7. Grand Island, Neb.
  8. Kirkland, Wash.
  9. Marion, Iowa
  10. West Bend, Wis.

When thinking about a new location, there are several things to consider, beyond what the community has to offer. For starters, you may want to look at job opportunities and the unemployment rate, and if you’re considering buying a home, see if you can afford property in the neighborhood you find desirable. Livability may be challenging to quantify, but affordability is a bit more black-and-white. Financial stability should always be a large factor in making big life decisions.

More from Credit.com

This article originally appeared on Credit.com.

MONEY buying a home

This Spring’s Hottest Real Estate Markets

North Beach, San Francisco Bay Area homes
Christian Heeb—Getty Images North Beach, San Francisco Bay Area

Buyers need to move a bit faster this year in order to snag their dream house, even in some of the slowest-moving markets. Homes are going especially quick in the San Francisco Bay Area, Southern California, Seattle, and Salt Lake City.

Housing inventory remains tight, and one of the questions on the minds of many homebuyers this spring is just how fast they will have to move to get the home they want and can afford.

To find out how long homes are staying on the market, we calculated the share of homes for sale on Trulia over a two-month period. We first looked at homes listed on February 5, then counted how many were still for sale on April 5. Faster-moving markets had a lower percentage of homes still on the market after two months, while slower-moving markets had a higher percentage.

Trulia_FastestMovingMarkets_Infographic_Apr20151

Our two-month measure is similar to a common housing statistic: days on market (DOM). In general, housing markets with more inventory and fewer buyers will have a higher share of for-sale homes remaining on the market after two months and a higher median DOM. But we prefer our two-month measure over the widely watched DOM as a way to determine how quickly homes are moving in a market.

Why? We think DOM is potentially misleading. If lots of new inventory suddenly lands on the market, then the median DOM could fall thanks to all those newly listed homes. Thus, a low median DOM might indicate that buyers are snapping up homes quickly, so homes aren’t staying on the market long (a seller’s market). But it could also signal that a lot of new inventory has just come onto the market (a buyer’s market). As a result, it’s difficult to decipher what’s really going on based on DOM alone.

Looking for a Bargain Home? So Is Everyone Else

Nationally, 60% of homes listed for sale on February 5 were still on the market on April 5, down a bit from 62% for the same period last year. What’s quickening the pace of sales? It turns out it’s homes priced at the low end of the market. To see this, we evenly divided all homes in each of the 100 largest U.S. metros into three price tiers.

We gave each metro its own price cutoffs based on what’s considered high-end, mid-range, and low-end locally. On average, lower-priced homes moved fastest. Only 50% of homes in this tier were still on the market after two months compared with 65% of higher-priced homes.

What’s more, home sales in the low-price tier sped up more compared with a year ago than sales in other tiers. The share of low-price homes still on the market after two months dropped 3 percentage points, compared with a 1 point drop for middle-tier homes and a 1 point increase for high-tier homes. As always though, the national trend hides big differences from one local market to another. In many metros, the sales pace is quickening, while in others it is slowing.

Trulia_FastestMovingMarkets_BarChart_Apr2015

California: Home to America’s Fastest-Moving Housing Markets

If you’re a home seller, California may indeed be the Golden State. Eight of the 10 fastest-moving housing markets are there, and homes are selling much faster than in the Northeast, South, and Midwest. In fact, fewer than 30% of homes for sale in the three San Francisco Bay Area metros remained on the market after two months.

By contrast, about 70% of homes in Long Island and Albany, NY were still on the market. In addition, the only metros outside California that made the 10 fastest moving list were Seattle and Salt Lake City.

America’s Top 10 Fastest-Moving Housing Markets
# U.S. Metro % of homes still for sale after two months, April 2015 % of homes still for sale after two months, April 2014 Difference in share still for sale, 2015 vs 2014 Median Asking Home prices, April 2015
1 San Francisco, CA 26% 28% -3% $1,099,000
2 San Jose, CA 30% 31% -1% $800,000
3 Oakland, CA 30% 31% -1% $598,000
4 San Diego, CA 33% 44% -11% $549,990
5 Orange County, CA 41% 45% -3% $699,000
6 Seattle, WA 42% 45% -3% $409,993
7 Sacramento, CA 42% 45% -3% $396,950
8 Los Angeles, CA 43% 45% -3% $549,000
9 Ventura County, CA 43% 50% -6% $589,999
10 Salt Lake City, UT 45% 28% -6% $299,900
Note: Among the 100 largest U.S. metros. The two-month shares and the difference are rounded to the nearest percentage point, and the difference was calculated before rounding; therefore, the rounded difference might not equal the difference between the rounded shares. Click here to download the full results for each of the 100 largest U.S. metros.

None of the fastest-moving markets have slowed since last year. In fact, the markets on our top 10 list that sped up the most are San Diego, Ventura County, and Salt Lake City. Other markets that are speeding up most rapidly are almost exclusively in the South and Southwest. The share of homes for sale in Cape CoralFort Myers, FL still on the market two months later dropped from 64% in April 2014 to 47% in April 2015. El Paso, TX and Richmond, VA also sped up at a similar pace, even though homes in those markets aren’t moving quickly enough to land them on the 10 fastest-moving markets list.

To illustrate this point, the figure below shows that homes in markets with bigger price increases tend to move faster, though not always. For the most part, these fast-moving metros are sellers’ markets where homes don’t sit very long.

Trulia_FastestMovingMarkets_Scatterplot_Apr2015

Housing Markets Moving Sluggishly in Long Island and Albany, NY

In contrast, the slowest-moving markets are in the Northeast, including Long Island and Albany, and in the South, including Columbia, SC, and Knoxville. All but two of the 10 slowest-moving markets had year-over-year price increases below the 5% national average.

However, even among these snail’s-pace markets, the share of homes still for sale after two months dropped in five of 10 metros. Knoxville and Long Island both all sped up 2 percentage points this year compared with last. It’s true that in six of the metros on this list, the pace of sales slowed in 2015 compared with the year before. The pace of sales slowed the most in Miami (9 points) and Pittsburgh (4 points).

America’s Top 10 Slowest-Moving Housing Markets
# U.S. Metro % of homes still for sale after two months, April 2015 % of homes still for sale after two months, April 2014 Difference in share still for sale, 2015 vs 2014 Median Asking Home prices, April 2015
1 Albany, NY 71% 70% 1% $264,900
2 Long Island, NY 69% 71% -2% $474,995
3 Syracuse, NY 68% 67% 1% $153,000
4 Columbia, SC 67% 69% -1% $170,000
5 Knoxville, TN 67% 69% -2% $184,900
6 Pittsburgh, PA 67% 62% 4% $155,000
7 Lake County –Kenosha County, IL-WI 67% 64% 3% $289,000
8 Virginia BeachNorfolk, VA 65% 65% 0% $249,000
9 Birmingham, AL 65% 66% -1% $193,000
10 Miami, FL 65% 56% 9% $319,000
Note: Among the 100 largest U.S. metros. The two-month shares and the difference are rounded to the nearest percentage point, and the difference was calculated before rounding; therefore, the rounded difference might not equal the difference between the rounded shares. Click here to download the full results for each of the 100 largest U.S. metros.

Why do some markets speed up while others slow down? Last year we found the fastest moving markets were those that had the largest year-over-year price gains. Things don’t appear to have changed this year. In fact, asking prices increased near or above the national average of 5% year-over-year in six of the 10 fastest-moving markets.

But fast-moving markets are different in other ways, too. They tend to be more expensive to begin with. In other words, they have both higher price levels AND they’ve notched bigger price increases in the past year. Expensive markets—including many in California—have tight housing supplies because of limited construction in the face of growing demand. So homes get snapped up quickly.

And this is bad news for first-time homebuyers. The combination of an expensive market and fast-selling homes at the low tier is yet another hurdle for first-timers, who are already getting slammed by declining affordability and slow wage growth. Now, even the homes they might be able to afford seem to be disappearing in the blink of an eye.

MONEY Taxes

8 Reasons Your Property Taxes Are So Damn High

150420_EM_PropertyTax
Lisa Corson—Gallery Stock Tourism keeps Las Vegas' property taxes low. New Jersey homeowners have no such luck.

Income taxes are probably top of mind right about now. But for many homeowners, high property taxes are an issue year-round. What's to explain why property taxes are such a burden in certain parts of the country?

A Monmouth University survey released last fall showed that more than half of New Jersey residents want to leave at some point, with 26% saying that it’s “very likely” they’ll move away from the Garden State. The most popular reasons cited for were the costs of housing and property taxes—the high cost of property taxes in particular. “The chief culprit among these costs is the New Jersey’s property tax burden,” Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, explained.

New Jersey isn’t the only state at risk of losing residents to Florida, Pennsylvania, or another state with lower taxes. Stories pop up regularly speculating about the likelihood of homeowners jumping ship from high-tax states like New York and Connecticut as well.

Why is it that some states and municipalities have much higher property tax than their neighbors in the first place? Here’s a rundown of a few major factors.

The community has good schools. Or at least extremely well-funded ones. According to Zillow, the median residential property tax bill in New York’s Westchester County is $13,842, highest in the nation. A Westchester Magazine feature focused on why the leafy, desirable county holds this dubious distinction. The piece draws a comparison to Virginia’s Fairfax County, which is similar in many ways to Westchester: They’re both suburbs of big cities (New York and Washington, D.C.), they have similarly high home values, and they educate about the same number of students in public schools, which in both places have a good reputation.

Yet Westchester spends over $1 billion more to fund its schools, and since property taxes cover the lion’s share of that bill, there’s a big disparity in what homeowners pay. The average residential property tax bill is about $5,500 annually, less than half of what Westchester residents pay (people in Fairfax still complain about property taxes being too high).

The average teacher salary in Fairfax was roughly $67,000 in 2014. In Westchester, the average was estimated at $88,000 in 2013. Benefits and administrative costs add up too—Fairfax County has one superintendent, Westchester has 40—and collectively they translate into bigger burdens on Westchester’s property owners. Defenders of high educator salaries always note that they’re necessary given the high cost of living in the area, and it’s a valid point. After all, teachers, principals, and superintendents must pay local property taxes!

State workers make good money too. By most measures, New Jersey homeowners have the country’s highest property taxes. Tax Foundation data shows that the Garden State has the highest effective property tax rate (percentage of home value) and the highest property taxes per capita. The average property tax bill in the state hit $8,161 in 2014, also tops in the U.S. In fact, one study indicates that less than 1% of American homeowners pay more than $8,000 annually in property taxes.

An Asbury Park Press op-ed published last summer noted that a big reason for the state’s high property taxes is how much the state pays its workers:

The problem lies less with layers of government and excessive numbers of government workers providing services than with the generous salaries and benefits of those who are on the public payroll. Average state worker salaries: highest in the nation. Average teacher salaries: third highest. Public employee health benefit costs: second highest in the nation.

Your state relies heavily on property taxes. The above-referenced editorial also points out that 48% of state and local revenues collected in N.J. come from property taxes, which is off-the-charts high: “No other state derives more than 41 percent of its revenue from that source; the U.S. average is 33.1 percent.”

This state of affairs would be more acceptable to locals if the tradeoff for high property taxes is low taxation in other areas. Indeed, New Jersey has one of the country’s lowest gas taxes, and it’s in the middle of the pack in terms of taxes on wine, spirits, and beer. Unlike many other states, people in New Jersey don’t pay any vehicle property taxes either. Then again, New Jerseyans do pay the second highest state sales tax rate (7%, only California is higher).

Little or no tourism. A recent WalletHub study named Hawaii as the state with the lowest property taxes. New Jersey property taxes are eight times higher than their counterparts in the Aloha State. And a big reason why homeowners get off (relatively) easy in Hawaii is that the state collects so much from outsiders, thanks to high taxes on hotels and other tourism expenses. Likewise, taxes paid by casinos and tourists in Nevada are often credited as a reason why state property taxes aren’t high.

Little or no industry. The more that industrial and commercial businesses pay in taxes in a state or town, the less it’s necessary for homeowners to cover the government’s tab. According to the Wyoming Taxpayer Association, 69% of property taxes in the state are paid by mineral production businesses. Therefore, residential property taxes can remain low—the state has no income tax either. The city of Marlborough, Mass., recently estimated that it were it not for local commercial taxpayers, the average homeowner would see his property tax bill (now averaging $4,791) shoot up by $1,164 per year.

Your property is worth a bundle. Your property tax bill is based on multiplying the local tax rate times the assessed value of your home. So, generally speaking, the owners of more valuable homes pay more in property taxes. Marin County has the most expensive real estate in California, on average, so it should come as no surprise that it has the highest (or among the highest) average property taxes too. In New Jersey, the 10 towns with the highest property tax bills all averaged over $18,000 per year, and five out of the ten had average residential property values over $1 million.

Or it’s not worth much at all. A recent RealtyTrac report shows that nationwide, the highest property tax rates were for high-end homes, valued between $2 million and $5 million. That’s not surprising. What is somewhat of a shock, however, is that the second highest effective property tax rate—calculated based on a percentage of a home’s value—was for houses at the extreme low end of the value spectrum, assessed at under $50,000 or less. Granted, owners at the low end aren’t paying big bucks, but in terms of the percentage of the home’s value, property tax rates represent a disproportionate burden.

Your assessment was too high. There may not be much you can do to change your local tax rate—other than move, of course. But you can challenge the assessment on your property. If your appeal results in a lower assessment, your tax bill goes down as well. The National Taxpayers Union estimates that somewhere between 30% and 60% of properties are over-assessed. This guide to disputing your property taxes from This Old House has some of the best advice on the topic we could find.

MONEY Ask the Expert

Rental Properties vs. Stocks and Bonds

Investing illustration
Robert A. Di Ieso, Jr.

Q: I bought a rental property that has increased in value considerably. The cash is great, but I’m wondering if I should sell high and invest in a different asset.
– Russell in Portland, Ore.

A: “This is a situation where there really is no one-size-fits-all answer,” says David Walters, a certified public accountant and certified financial planner with Palisades Hudson Financial Group.

To tackle this question, you’ll want to first get a handle on just how well this investment is performing relative to other assets.

For a simple apples-to-apples comparison, take the property’s annual net cash flow (income minus expenses) and divide it by the equity in the home, he says. You can use this yield to see how the income generated by this property stacks up against that of other investments, such as dividend-paying stocks.

To calculate your total return, take that yield and add it to your expected annual long-term price gains. If your yield is 5%, for example, and you expect the value of the property to appreciate 2% a year on average, your annual total return would be 7%.

Next, you’ll want to figure out just how much you would have left to reinvest after you pay the real estate broker (typical commissions are 6% of the sale price) and the taxes. “In this case, taxes could be a big factor,” says Walters.

Remember, because this is an investment property, you are not eligible for the capital gains exclusions ($250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for couples) available when you sell a primary residence.

Assuming you’ve owned the house for more than a year, you’ll owe the long-term capital gains rate, which is 0% to 20% depending on your tax bracket; for most people that rate is 15% for federal taxes. Your state will also want its share, and in Oregon it’s a pretty big one – 9.9%.

There’s more to it. If you depreciated the property – odds are you did – you’ll need to “recapture” some of that write off when you sell, and at your marginal income tax rate. Here too you’ll owe both federal and state taxes.

One way to avoid paying a big tax bill now is to do a 1031 exchange, in which you effectively swap this property for another investment property in another neighborhood or a different market — though there are plenty of caveats.

Assuming you don’t want to re-invest in actual real estate, the big question is where you should invest the proceeds of the sale – and is it better than what you already have?

You could look at alternative assets that have a similar risk and reward profile — dividend-paying stocks, real estate investment trusts or master limited partnerships.

A better approach, however, may be a more holistic one. “You want to know where this fits in the big picture,” says Walters. Rather than try to pick and choose an alternative investment, you may just roll the proceeds into your overall portfolio – assuming it’s appropriately diversified. If you can max out on tax-deferred options such as an IRA or, if you’re self-employed, a SEP IRA, even better.

Depending on how much other real estate you own, you could allocate up to 10% of your overall portfolio to a real estate mutual fund, such as the T. Rowe Price Real Estate Fund (TRREX) or Cohen & Steers Realty Shares (CSRSX).

The tradeoff: “Most of these funds own commercial real estate,” says Walters. “There aren’t a lot of options to get passive exposure to residential real estate.”

Then again, investing in actual real estate takes time, lacks liquidity, and comes with some big strings attached. On paper, your investment property might seem like a better deal than any of the alternatives, says Walters, “but there are 50 other things you have to think about.”

With real property there’s always the risk that you’ll have to pay in money for, say, a new roof or heating and cooling system. That’s one thing you don’t have to worry about with a mutual fund.

MONEY Credit Scores

The One Graph That Explains Why a Good FICO Score Matters for Homebuyers

young couple outside of home
Ann Marie Kurtz—Getty Images

An analysis from an economic policy group estimates that tight credit standards may have prevented 4 million consumers from getting mortgages since 2009.

When it comes to buying a home, there’s a lot more to the process than just finding an affordable home for sale and having enough money for a down payment. Most people need loans to finance such a large purchase, but even as the housing market has rebounded from the foreclosure crisis and low property values of 2010, mortgages remain very difficult to acquire. A report from the Urban Institute, a Washington-based economic-policy research group, concludes that 1.25 million more mortgages could have been made in 2013 on the basis of conservative lending standards practiced in 2001, years before the housing bubble began to inflate.

Whether or not a lender approves a borrower for a mortgage depends on several factors, like income and outstanding debt, but looking at the credit scores of mortgage borrowers during the last several years shows just how tight the market has been post-recession. Here’s how it breaks down.

Urban-Institute-FICO-Score-distribution

The Urban Institute estimates that the stringent credit score standards for mortgage origination resulted in 4 million mortgages that could have been made (but weren’t) between 2009 and 2013. From 2001 to 2013, consumers with a FICO credit score higher than 720 made up an increasingly large portion of borrowers, from 44% of loans in 2001 to 62% in 2013. Consumers with scores lower than 660 made up 11% of borrowers in 2013, but they represented 28% of home loans in 2001.

The study authors note that their calculations do not account for a potential decline in sales because consumers may not see homeownership as attractive as it had been before the crisis.

“Even so, it is inconceivable that a decline in demand could explain a 76% drop in borrowers with FICO scores below 660, but only a 9% drop in borrowers with scores above 720,” the report says.

On top of that, the authors found that tightened credit standards disproportionately affected Hispanic and African-American consumers. In comparison to loan originations made in 2001, new mortgages among white borrowers declined 31% by the 2009-2013 period, 38% for Hispanic borrowers and 50% for African-American borrowers. Loans to Asian families increased by 8%.

Millions of Americans are still feeling the impact of the economic downturn on their credit scores, because negative information like foreclosure, bankruptcy and collection accounts remain on credit reports for several years. Rebuilding the credit and assets necessary to buy a home takes time, particularly in such a tight lending climate, but by regularly checking your credit — which you can do for free on Credit.com — and focusing on things like keeping debt levels low and making loan payments on time, you can start making your way toward a better credit standing.

More from Credit.com

This article originally appeared on Credit.com.

TIME real estate

Why Your Rent Will Rise Again This Year

Condo Towers Rise From Boston to Los Angeles in U.S. Rebound
Patrick T. Fallon—Bloomberg/Getty Images The EVO condominium building stands in downtown Los Angeles, California, on June 23, 2014.

More people than ever are apartment hunting

(LOS ANGELES) — Living in an apartment? Expect your rent to go up again.

Renting has gotten increasingly expensive over the last five years. The average U.S. rent has climbed 14 percent to $1,124 since 2010, according to commercial property tracker Reis Inc. That’s four percentage points faster than inflation, and more than double the rise in U.S. home prices over the same period.

Now, even with a surge in apartment construction, rents are projected to rise yet another 3.3 percent this year, to an average $1,161, according to Reis. While that’s slower than last year’s 3.6 percent increase, the broader upward trend isn’t going away.

“The only relief in sight is rents in the hottest markets are going to go up at a slower pace, but they’re still going to go up,” says Hessam Nadji, chief strategy officer at Marcus & Millichap, a commercial real estate services firm.

The main reason: More people than ever are apartment hunting.

Young people who have been living with their parents are increasingly finding jobs and moving out. Rising home prices are leading many long-time renters to stay put.

In addition, most of the new apartments coming on the market are aimed at affluent tenants and carry higher-than-average rents. That’s especially true in cities where new buildings are going up in urban core areas, which means builders need to recoup higher land and development costs.

Consider Denver, where rents have increased more than 5 percent a year since 2010 — 9.2 percent in 2014 — according to Marcus & Millichap. Of the 9,400 new apartment units added last year, 23 percent were in urban core areas.

Competition for apartments means renters are less likely to be able to negotiate with landlords, or win concessions such as a free month’s rent.

Here’s a closer look at why apartment dwellers will probably see rents go up for a sixth straight year.

—MORE JOBS, MORE COMPETITION

During the last recession many workers who lost their jobs moved in with relatives or took on roommates. About 32 percent of U.S. adults were living with roommates or adult family members in 2012, up from 27.4 percent in 2006, according to Zillow, an online real estate firm.

Stepped-up hiring has begun to reverse that trend. About 2.8 million more Americans have jobs than 12 months ago.

“The share of young adults with jobs has climbed in the past year, and that will help many of them move out of their parents’ homes,” says Jed Kolko, chief economist at online real estate firm Trulia. “Most of them will be renters first.”

More people vying for apartments helps drive rents higher. And metropolitan areas with faster job growth are generally seeing higher-than-average rent hikes as well.

The three metro areas with the biggest annual increase in rent in January, according to Trulia: Denver (14.2 percent), Oakland, California (12.1 percent), and San Francisco (11.6 percent).

Job growth in each of those cities also eclipsed the national growth rate of 2.3 percent over the 12 months ended in January. Employment grew 3.7 percent in Denver, 2.7 percent in Oakland and 4.5 percent in San Francisco.

—HOMEBUYING DELAYED

Traditionally, renting has been a stepping stone toward homeownership. When rents rise, tenants are motivated to buy sooner, especially when interest rates are near historic lows, as they are now.

But these days, renters are taking longer to buy. The U.S. homeownership rate ended last year at a 19-year low of 64.4 percent.

Between higher rents taking a bigger bite out of the bank account and sharply higher home prices, potential buyers are having more trouble saving for a down payment and qualifying for a mortgage.

And many millennials, or 18- to 34-year-olds, simply prefer renting.

That’s true for Alyssa Hankins, a marketing and social media strategist in Los Angeles. She moved in February to a newly opened complex where rents range from $2,325 for a studio to $5,920 for a two-bedroom unit. She wants to be able to move quickly if a job opportunity comes up.

“It’s less about affordability and more about flexibility,” says Hankins, 29.

When renters stay put, fewer apartments are available for new tenants, which in turn drives up rents.

—NEW APARTMENTS ARE PRICEY

Developers added 238,000 apartments nationwide last year, a 14-year high, with another 210,000 expected this year, according to Marcus & Millichap.

In theory, more apartment construction should help bring down rents because landlords would compete for tenants. But 80 percent of new complexes, Nadji estimates, are high-end projects aimed at renters willing to pay a premium for amenities like gourmet kitchens and concierge service.

How much of a premium? The average rent for apartments completed last year was $1,721. That’s 46 percent higher than the average apartment rent for older units, according to Marcus & Millichap and data provider MPF Research.

“There’s very little new supply being added anywhere else,” says Nadji, “so that’s why there’s so much pressure on rents and very little choice for the average renter.”

MONEY renting

These Are the Most—And Least—Affordable Places to Rent

Fieldston Historic District, Riverdale, Bronx, New York
Alamy Fieldston Historic District, Riverdale, Bronx, New York

A New York City borough is the least affordable—but it's not the one you're thinking of.

It’s no secret that renting has become more expensive in recent years. Now, new data a from housing data firm RealtyTrac lets us know exactly where in the country renting is most and least affordable.

In order to find out which areas are easiest on the typical renter’s wallet, RealtyTrac crunched the numbers on 461 counties across the U.S. with a population of at least 100,000 and sufficient data available, to determine the percentage of the local median household income that gets eaten up by the “fair market” rent (set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) on a three bedroom property.

The Bronx, in New York City, where fair-market rent takes up a whopping 69% of median income, ranks as the least affordable county in the nation—a result of the borough’s extremely low median income and relatively high rents.

San Francisco, Brooklyn (Kings County, New York), and Philadelphia, are also high on the list, each taking up around 48% of the typical household salary in rent payments.

REa

On the other end of the spectrum, Delaware County, Ohio, was ranked as the most affordable city for renters, with fair-market rents costing just 14% of the median household income. Delaware was closely followed by Williamson County, Tennessee; Hamilton County, Indiana; and Fort Bend County, Texas.

image008 (1)

RealtyTrac also notes that renting is generally more expensive than buying a house. The firm found monthly ownership costs of a median-priced home—including mortgage payments, property taxes, and home and mortgage insurance, assuming a 10% down payment—account, on average, for just 24% of the median income. Fair-market rents, by comparison, averaged 28% of the typical household income. Overall, RealtyTrac found house payments were more affordable than fair-market rents in 76% of the counties it analyzed.

“From a pure affordability standpoint, renters who have saved enough to make a 10% down payment are better off buying in the majority of markets across the country,” said RealtyTrac vice president Daren Blomquist.

That said, Blomquist warned, “Keep in mind that in some markets buying may be more affordable than renting, but that doesn’t mean buying is truly affordable by traditional standards.” He added, “In those markets renters are stuck between a rock and hard place when it comes to deciding whether to buy or continue renting.”

MONEY Odd Spending

7 Things You Won’t Believe Were Sold for Only $1

Copies of the New York Daily News are displayed on a newsstand in New York's Times Square
Brendan McDermid—Reuters Copies of the New York Daily News are displayed on a newsstand in New York's Times Square March 31, 2015.

An offer is on the table to buy the New York Daily News for just $1, which on the surface seems mind-boggling. Bizarrely, many big-ticket items have been known to trade hands for just a buck.

As Reuters reported on Tuesday, Cablevision is preparing to make a bid for the struggling New York tabloid the Daily News. The bid is expected to be a grand total of just $1, which sounds insane until you factor in that the paper reportedly loses $30 million annually and needs an investment of $150 million in its printing press.

Here are a few other noteworthy things that have sold a for just a buck. Some are amazing deals, while others aren’t remotely bargains, even with a mere $1 asking price.

Historic Homes
Grand old homes have been known to sell for just $1, often with the catch being that the new owners must handle the cost of moving the building to a new location. In other instances, the list price of $1 is the result of the property being a fixer-upper, to put it mildly, as well as in an undesirable location.

Timeshares
Timeshares occasionally are put on the market for dirt cheap, typically by owners who want to unload the property’s costly maintenance fees. The properties are often sold for $1, though most of RedWeek’s Bargain Timeshares roundup are listed at $0.

Cars
A used car dealer in New Zealand hoped to get about $3,000 for a 1994 BMW in an online auction, but due to a mistake a customer wound up purchasing it at a Buy-It-Now price of $1. The dealer actually honored the sale price too. Meanwhile, at least one car dealership in Texas listed a few $1 mystery cars on his lot as part of a Black Friday promotion in 2013.

Flights
When $1 flights appear, travelers must act immediately and be flexible about when they can fly. For obvious reasons, deals like this are available in extremely limited quantities. Over the years, carriers such as Nature Air (in Costa Rica), TigerAir Australia, America’s Spirit Airlines, and Europe’s Ryanair have been known to sell flights for $1, or about that much in the local currency.

Newsweek
A few months after Newsweek stopped putting out a print edition in 2013, the brand was purchased by IBT Media for $1. It had previously been sold to the wealthy philanthropist and businessman Sidney Harman, also at a price of $1, plus liabilities.

Dinner
Last summer, the on-demand food delivery service Spoonrocket tried to break the Guinness World Record for largest ever virtual dinner party, and it used a $1 dinner promotion as enticement to get consumers to join in the cause. Too bad the site crashed during the PR stunt and countless people found it impossible to get their $1 dinner.

Hotels
The Public Chicago hotel periodically offers hundreds of hotel rooms at a special rate of $1 per night. How and when the rooms go on sale is something of a mystery, however, and anyone hoping to snag the deal would have to sign up for promotional emails from the hotel. In years past, the Hoxton Hotel in London has run a similar promotion, though its rooms were offered at £1.

MONEY Millennials

5 Big Myths About What Millennials Truly Want

150119_EM_MillennialMyth
Jamie Grill—Getty Images

We've heard a ton about millennials—where they want to live, what they love to eat, what's most important to them in the workplace, and so on. It's time to set the record straight.

In some ways, it’s foolish to make broad generalizations about any generation, each of which numbers into the tens of millions of people. Nonetheless, demographers, marketers, and we in the media can’t help but want to draw conclusions about their motivations and desires. That’s especially true when it comes to the young people who conveniently came of age with the Internet and smartphones, making it possible for their preferences and personal data to be tracked from birth.

Naturally, everyone focuses on what makes each generation different. Sometimes those differences, however slight, come to be viewed as hugely significant breaks from the past when in fact they’re pretty minor. There’s a tendency to oversimplify and paint with an exceptionally broad brush for the sake of catchy headlines and easily digestible info nuggets. (Again, we’re as guilty of this as anyone, admittedly.) The result is that widely accepted truisms are actually myths—or at least only tell part of the story. Upon closer inspection, there’s good reason to call these five generalizations about millennials into question.

1. Millennials Don’t Like Fast Food
One of the most accepted truisms about millennials—easily the most overexamined generation in history—is that they are foodies who love going out to eat. And when they eat, they want it to be special, with fresh, high-quality ingredients that can be mixed and matched according to their whims, not some stale, processed cookie-cutter package served to the masses.

In other words, millennials are huge fans of Chipotle and fast-casual restaurants, while they wouldn’t be caught dead in McDonald’s. In fact, the disdain of millennials for McDonald’s is frequently noted as a prime reason the fast food giant has struggled mightily of late.

But guess what? Even though survey data shows that millennials prefer fast-casual over fast food, and even though some stats indicate millennial visits to fast food establishments are falling, younger consumers are far more likely to dine at McDonald’s than at Chipotle, Panera Bread, and other fast-casual restaurants.

Last summer, a Wall Street Journal article pointed out that millennials are increasingly turning away from McDonald’s in favor of fast casual. Yet a chart in the story shows that roughly 75% of millennials said they go to McDonald’s at least once a month, while only 20% to 25% of millennials visit a fast-casual restaurant of any kind that frequently. Similarly, data collected by Morgan Stanley cited in a recent Business Insider post shows that millennials not only eat at McDonald’s more than at any other restaurant chain, but that they’re just as likely to go to McDonald’s as Gen Xers and more likely to dine there than Boomers.

At the same time, McDonald’s was the restaurant brand that millennials would least likely recommend publicly to others, with Burger King, Taco Bell, KFC, and Jack in the Box also coming in toward the bottom in the spectrum of what millennials find worthy of their endorsements. What it looks like, then, is that millennials are fast food regulars, but they’re ashamed about it.

2. Millennials Want to Live in Cities, Not Suburbs
Another broad generalization about millennials is that they prefer urban settings, where they can walk or take the bus, subway, or Uber virtually anywhere they need to go. There are some facts to back this up. According to an October 2014 White House report, millennials were the most likely group to move into mid-size cities, and the number of young people living in such cities was 5% higher compared with 30 years prior. The apparent preference for cities has been pointed to as a reason why Costco isn’t big with millennials, who seem to not live close enough to the warehouse retailer’s suburban locations to justify a membership, nor do their apartments have space for Costco’s bulk-size merchandise.

But just because the percentage of young people living in cities has been inching up doesn’t mean that the majority actually steer clear of the suburbs. Five Thirty Eight recently took a deep dive into Census data, which shows that in 2014 people in their 20s moving out of cities and into suburbs far outnumber those going in the opposite direction. In the long run, the suburbs seem the overwhelming choice for settling down, with roughly two-thirds of millennial home buyers saying they prefer suburban locations and only 10% wanting to be in the city. It’s true that a smaller percentage of 20-somethings are moving to the suburbs compared with generations ago, but much of the reason why this is so is that millennials are getting married and having children later in life.

3. Millennials Don’t Want to Own Homes
Closely related to the theory that millennials like cities over suburbs is the idea that they like renting rather than owning. That goes not only for where they live, but also what they wear, what they drive, and more.

In terms of homes, the trope that millennials simply aren’t into ownership just isn’t true. Surveys show that the vast majority of millennials do, in fact, want to own homes. It’s just that, at least up until recently, monster student loans, a bad jobs market, the memory of their parents’ home being underwater, and/or their delayed entry into the world of marriage and parenthood have made homeownership less attractive or impossible.

What’s more, circumstances appear to be changing, and many more millennials are actually becoming homeowners. Bloomberg News noted that millennials constituted 32% of home buyers in 2014, up from 28% from 2012, making them the largest demographic in the market. Soaring rents, among other factors, have nudged millennials into seeing ownership as a more sensible option. Surveys show that 5.2 million renters expect to a buy a home this year, up from 4.2 million in 2014. Since young people represent a high portion of renters, we can expect the idea that millennials don’t want to own homes to be increasingly exposed as a myth.

4. Millennials Hate Cars
Cars are just not cool. They’re bad for the environment, they cost too much, and, in an era when Uber is readily available and socializing online is arguably more important than socializing in person, having a car doesn’t seem all that necessary. Certainly not as necessary as a smartphone or broadband. Indeed, the idea that millennials could possibly not care about owning cars is one that has puzzled automakers, especially those in the car-crazed Baby Boom generation.

In many cases, the car industry has disregarded the concept, claiming that the economy rather than consumer interest is why fewer young people were buying cars. Whatever the case, the numbers show that the majority of millennials will own cars, regardless of whether they love them as much as their parents did when they were in their teens and 20s. According to Deloitte’s 2014 Gen Y Consumer Study, more than three-quarters of millennials plan on purchasing or leasing a car over the next five years, and 64% of millennials say they “love” their cars. Sales figures are reflecting the sentiment; in the first half of 2014, millennials outnumbered Gen X for the first time ever in terms of new car purchases.

5. Millennials Have a Different Attitude About Work
As millennials entered the workforce and have become a more common presence in offices around the world, much attention has been focused on the unorthodox things that young people supposedly care more about than their older colleagues. Millennials, surveys and anecdotal evidence have shown, want to be able to wear jeans and have flexible work hours to greater degrees than Gen X and Boomers. Young people also want to be more collaborative, demand more feedback, and are less motivated by money than older generations.

That’s the broad take on what motivates millennial workers anyway. An IBM study on the matter suggests otherwise, however. “We discovered that Millennials want many of the same things their older colleagues do,” researchers state. There may be different preferences on smaller issues—like, say, the importance of being able to dress casually on the job—but when it comes to overarching work goals achieved in the long run, millennials are nearly identical to their more experienced colleagues: “They want financial security and seniority just as much as Gen X and Baby Boomers, and all three generations want to work with a diverse group of people.”

What’s more, IBM researchers say, millennials do indeed care about making more money at work, and that, despite their reputation as frequent “job hoppers,” they jump ship to other companies about as often as other generations, and their motivations are essentially the same: “When Millennials change jobs, they do so for much the same reasons as Gen X and Baby Boomers. More than 40 percent of all respondents say they would change jobs for more money and a more innovative environment.”

TIME

Many Young Adults Need Parents’ Help to Buy a Home

Mortgage Bankers Association To Release Weekly Mortgage Market Index June 12
Daniel Acker—Bloomberg /Getty Images

At least they’re out of the basement

Three out of four young adults who recently bought their first home needed their parents’ help to afford the down payment, closing costs or other expenses, a new survey finds.

Interest in homeownership is picking up, especially among first-time buyers, and mortgage lender loanDepot LLC commissioned a survey to find out how today’s millennials — 97% of whom will take out a mortgage to buy their homes — plan to pay for their investment.

It seems the “bank of mom and dad” is a fallback most count on, with 75% of young adults who recently bought a home saying their parents helped them out. Another survey, this one from BMO Harris Bank, finds that about a quarter of first-time homebuyers expect to get money from their parents or other relatives.

Among parents of future would-be homebuyers, 17% of respondents to the loanDepot survey say they expect to have to chip in, up four percentage points from five years ago — a gap that suggests a number of today’s wanna-be homeowners expecting financial assistance probably shouldn’t hold their breath.

There are some indications that, even as young adults expect more assistance from their parents, the older generation has a dwindling amount of resources they can use to help. Over the past five years, just under three-quarters of parents who helped their kids buy homes used their savings, but that number is expected to fall to about two-thirds in the future, according to the survey. Instead, more parents will refinance their own homes, take out personal loans and borrow against their 401(k)s — potentially risking their own financial security.

And parents are digging deeper into their pockets to help out in other ways, too: Almost a third say they’ll pay some of their kids’ other expenses to help the younger generation save money, and 18% plan to help their kids pay down their student loans. Of the parents who are contributing to their kids’ investments, half say they’ll help their kids make the down payment, 20% say they’ll help with closing costs and 20% say they’ll actually co-sign the loan.

This might be reasonable in markets where high down payments are the norm, but experts warn that parental assistance sometimes can mask the fact that the home just isn’t affordable for the aspiring homebuyers. “One of our clients helped the child buy into the same neighborhood they lived in. The parents were excited, but it turned out to be a huge burden for the kids,” Brett Gookin, principal at wealth management firm Aspiriant, told SFGate.com last year. (San Francisco has the second-highest average down payment in the country, just behind New York City.)

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com