Rebounding Multifamily Home Construction--论文代写范文精选

仔细分析人口普查，数据显示有两个解释，在一定程度上是正确的。展望未来,千禧一代将继续帮助驱动多户建筑在未来几年。然而,从长远来看,婴儿潮一代将是多户家庭建设的主要因素。下面的essay代写范文进行详述。

Construction of both single-family and multifamily homes collapsed with the onset of the housing crisis in 2006. Since then, single-family construction has moved up only modestly, but multifamily construction has rebounded strongly. A number of factors account for this difference. Prior to the crisis, single-family housing was significantly overbuilt, leaving excess stock. The large declines in income and employment associated with the severe recession and slow recovery drove households to move to less expensive housing units, which are typically multifamily units. 

The housing crisis itself—characterized by plunging house prices and waves of foreclosures—left many households wary of homeownership. This wariness has primarily dampened demand for single-family homes, which have accounted for 95 percent of owned housing units since 1990. Many analysts have speculated about the demographic composition driving the multifamily rebound. A number of anecdotes suggest millennials may be the main driver, due in part to a strong preference for living in urban cores where multifamily housing dominates. 

Other anecdotes suggest baby boomers downsizing from single-family homes may be the main driver. A careful parsing of census data shows both explanations are partly correct. Adults in their 20s and early 30s, the current age range of millennials, swung back toward living in multifamily units after the housing crisis, reversing their swing away from multifamily units during the housing boom. But adults in their 50s and 60s, the current age range of baby boomers, accounted for most of the increase in the actual number of occupied multifamily units both before and after the housing crisis. Looking forward, millennials will continue to help drive multifamily construction over the next few years. Over the longer term, however, baby boomers will be the main driver of multifamily construction as they age through their senior years. Section I describes the diverging paths of single-family and multifamily construction since the housing crisis and the demographic composition driving the multifamily rebound. Section II analyzes the forces underpinning changes in demand for multifamily units by adults in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. Section III does the same for adults 50 and older.

The Multifamily Construction Rebound and Multifamily Occupancy Following the onset of the housing crisis in early 2006, single-family (SF) and multifamily (MF) construction plunged (Chart 1). By late 2009, starts of each unit type had decreased by nearly three-quarters. While single-family construction has moved up only tepidly since then, multifamily construction has rebounded strongly. By the end of 2014, multifamily construction starts had surpassed their pre-crisis level. The recent rebound in multifamily construction was driven primarily by young adults (ages 20-34), who sharply increased the number of multifamily units they occupied following a sharp decrease during the housing boom. 

Chart 2 breaks out recent changes in multifamily occupancy—the number of occupied multifamily units—into four age groups: young adults (ages 20-34), intermediate-age adults (35-49), older adults (50-69), and seniors (70+). The number of multifamily units headed by young adults decreased by one-half million from 2000 to 2007, freeing up multifamily units that other age groups could occupy. From 2007 to 2013, this pattern reversed: the number of multifamily units headed by young adults increased by one-half million. This increase required other age groups to free up existing units and builders to construct new ones. The implied one-million unit flip from young adults freeing up units to claiming new ones accounted for much of the rebound in multifamily construction.1 The Box describes the close relationship between construction and changes in occupancy. In contrast, intermediate-age adults (ages 35-49) have recently exerted modest downward pressure on multifamily construction as they flipped from claiming more units from 2000 to 2007 to freeing up units from 2007 to 2013. Older adults (ages 50-69) accounted for most of the increase in multifamily occupancy from 2000 to 2007 and from 2007 to 2013, and nearly all of the net increase over the two periods combined. Even so, older adults contributed relatively little to the construction rebound. 

Their increase in occupancy from 2007 to 2013 was only slightly larger than their increase from 2000 to 2007; as a result, only a moderate increase in multifamily construction was needed during the later period to meet older adults’ demand. Seniors (ages 70 and older) contributed to the multifamily rebound in the same way as young adults. From 2000 to 2007, seniors freed up 250-thousand multifamily units. From 2007 to 2013, they claimed an additional 250-thousand units. The implied one-half million swing in senior occupancy significantly spurred multifamily construction from 2007 to 2013.

Changing Multifamily Occupancy by Young and Intermediate-Age Adults 
The number of occupied multifamily units can be decomposed as the product of three components: population, headship, and the share of households living in multifamily units. The headship rate is the ratio of occupied units to the total population—that is, the inverse of the average number of persons per household.2 For example, a two-person household is equivalent to a one-half headship rate. Higher headship rates imply more units are required to house the entire population. This same decomposition can be done separately for multifamily households headed by individuals in different age groups.

From 1990 to 2013, the varying growth rates of population, headship, and the multifamily share each contributed to the varying growth rate of young adults’ multifamily occupancy (Chart 3). During the 1990s, the number of multifamily units occupied by young-adult households was essentially unchanged.3 The share of young-adult households living in multifamily units grew modestly, offsetting a modest contraction in the age group’s population. From 2000 to 2007, young adults’ multifamily occupancy contracted, as modest growth in their population was more than offset by modest contractions in their headship and multifamily share. From 2007 to 2013, young adults’ multifamily occupancy rebounded. 

Moderate growth in population and their multifamily share more than offset a large contraction in their headship. Intermediate-age adults’ multifamily occupancy grew significantly during the 1990s—due entirely to strong population growth—and then remained essentially unchanged through 2013 (Chart 4). From 2000 to 2007, intermediate-age headship, population, and multifamily share were each flat. From 2007 to 2013, contractions in population and headship offset moderate growth of the multifamily share.

Population growth. Demographic factors such as birth rates and aging drove population growth for young adults. The number of young adults contracted moderately during the 1990s, as baby boomers moved out of this age range and the smaller, post-babyboom generation (Generation X) began moving into it. In 2000, the young-adult population began to grow, reflecting a pickup in birth rates 20 years earlier. Similar factors accounted for growth in the intermediate-age population. Population growth for intermediate-age adults was exceptionally strong during the 1990s, as the trailing edge of baby boomers moved into this age range. 

The intermediate-age population contracted moderately from 2007 to 2013, as baby boomers moved out of this age range. Headship. Headship, the ratio of households to population, contracted for both young and intermediate-age adults from 1990 to 2013. The contraction was especially sharp from 2007 to 2013, reflecting the recession and slow recovery. For the most part, declining headship corresponded with the increasing share of adults living with their parents.4 For example, the share of young adults in their early 30s living with their parents rose by more than 1.5 percentage points from 2000 to 2007 and by more than 4 percentage points from 2007 to 2013 (Chart 5). 

From 1980 to 2013, the share of young adults living with their parents more than doubled. Similarly, the share of intermediate-age adults living with their parents doubled from 1980 to 2013. Both business cycle and long-term forces drove these increases. The sharp rise in unemployment during the 2007-09 recession and subsequent slow recovery kept young adults from moving out of their parents’ homes and forced many intermediate-age adults to move back into them (Paciorek). Over the longer term, sluggish income growth has also been driving more adults to live with their parents. The share of U.S. workers in low-skilled occupations has been increasing since the 1980s while real hourly wages in these occupations have steadily decreased (Tüzemen and Willis; Autor and Dorn; Autor, Katz, and Kearney). 

In addition, those with less education have increasingly dropped out of the labor force since the 1970s (Autor). The associated decreases in income have compelled working-age adults to pare their expenses; living with their parents helps accomplish this goal. Consistent with this explanation, the increase in the share of young adults living with their parents has been considerably smaller for college graduates than for high school graduates who did not attend college.5 While rising student debt also contributed to the increase in adults living with their parents (Bleemer, Brown, Lee, and van der Klaauw), it is unlikely to be the main long-term cause. The rise in student debt accelerated in the mid-1990s, many years after the share of adults living with their parents began trending upward (Akers and Chingos). 

In addition, the negative effects of debt for students who graduate college appear to be relatively short-lived (Mezza, Sommer, and Sherlund).6 For those who fail to graduate, however, student debt is likely to be a stronger, longer-lasting impediment to living on their own. The multifamily share. Both short-term and long-term forces drove changes in the share of households living in multifamily units. During the 2000-07 housing boom, relaxed access to mortgage credit and expectations of rapid house price appreciation fueled demand for homeownership. This depressed the multifamily share, as nearly all owner-occupied units are single-family units.7 Then, during the sharp recession and slow recovery, young and intermediate-age adults swung back toward living in multifamily units. Doing so is typically less expensive than living in single-family units and thus becomes more attractive when unemployment rises and income growth slows. 

Furthermore, many households moved to multifamily units after losing their single-family homes to foreclosure. In addition to these shorter-term swings, the share of young and intermediate-age adult households living in multifamily units has been trending up since 1980. For young adults, the share gradually increased from 40 percent in 1980 to 44 percent in 2000. After temporarily decreasing during the housing boom, the young-adult share climbed to 46 percent in 2013. Underlying this upward trend is the increasingly later age at which adults first marry or have children. 

The share of adults in their 20s through 50s who have ever been married has moved steadily down over time (Chart 6). For those ages 30 to 34, for example, the share decreased by 26 percentage points from 1980 to 2013. Over this same period, the share of women ages 30 to 34 living with one or more of their own children fell by 16 percentage points (author’s calculations based on Ruggles). As is intuitive, individuals living on their own or with a housemate are significantly more likely to live in multifamily units than are married couples (Chart 7). Similarly, married couples without children are significantly more likely to live in multifamily units than are married couples with children. For example, 61 percent of individuals ages 30 to 34 who lived alone occupied a multifamily unit in 2013 compared with 35 percent of those who were married without children and 18 percent of those who were married with children.

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X