Via Tyler Cowen SoberLook writes
The chart below (last 20 years) shows that non-family households have generally been growing in line with the US population and although dipped in 2008, have since recovered.
Non-family households vs. the US population (thousands, source: US Census Bureau)
The real problem however is found in the family household formation. Family households have completely decoupled from the US population growth since 2008.
Family households vs. the US population (thousands, source: US Census Bureau)
This deviation is quite new. Family households have been forming at an average rate of 651,000 per year since at least 1947 (when the first annual household data became available). During that whole period the only years showing "negative formation" are 2008, 2010, and 2011 – likely the result of families moving together (parents and grandparents, etc.).
This is my interpretation as well. From causal looks at the data, as well as other anecdotal evidence, it looks as if the percentage of kids moving back in with their parents is at all time high.
I would suspect that we do have some grandparents moving in, but it looks like its mainly the kids.
Moreover, much of this looks to be driven by a decline in marriage rates. So, we are thinking of a traditionalist family model where the extended family lives together until the kids are married off. The kids are not marrying off and so the family is staying together. If we look at the data we do see a sharp drop in the marriage rates of those with a high school education or less.

The household dynamics are complex, but here is my first blush takeaway. The demand for housing is still essentially “pent up” unless the marriage rate is declining.
It’s not enough for the marriage rate to be low because that alone will not produce a higher equilibrium household size. It will simply time-shift household formation towards a new matriarch formation point.
Now, I don’t know what produces a matriarch in the absence of marriage. Probably not simply death of the old matriarch. There is likely some other dynamic that occurs when a daughter defines her own household even without marriage occurring. What that is I don’t know.
My standard thinking is that it is not really important to think about the men. Its female household formation and evolution that matters. Men will simply become attached or detached from the female stem line but the women are the core of the household and the men can be treated as white noise about that core.


6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Tuesday ~ January 17th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Curt Doolittle
Hence the diversion in household incomes but convergence of individual consumption. (Which neither you nor PK will admit to – ’cause it would counter your thesis.)
Women in the lower classes would prefer to be poorer, and have spatial freedom than to keep a costly ‘beta’ in the nest, once they have given birth to their offspring.
The divergence in marriages is a failure by the lower classes to imitate the behavior of the upper classes. (Murray’s new book.)
(And BTW: Now that we’re relegated to social noise and nothing but stud service, can we have our property rights back and eliminate the institutional anti-white-male-christian bias? lol )
Curt
Tuesday ~ January 17th, 2012 at 5:48 pm
JazzBumpa
The demand for housing is still essentially “pent up” unless the marriage rate is declining.
So housing is not priced at a market-clearing level. Or people can’t get loans. Or they’re afraid to take on a mortgage.
Any of these indicates a broken market. I think that demand can stay pent up for a long time.
JzB
Wednesday ~ January 18th, 2012 at 8:29 am
Tel
I would argue that depends on where the throttle sits. If resource availability is the throttle, then yes the men are what matters. However, if human fertility is the throttle then females are what matters (and mostly you can throw childrearing into that, but no always).
Taking a bit of a wild guess, up until recently resource availability was no problem, but as a consequence we got sloppy and household efficiency is a bit poor. These days the resource throttle is tightening (just check the statistics for families depending on food stamps). If resources aren’t the bottleneck right now, then it’s heading in that direction.
Wednesday ~ January 18th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Matt
My high school AP Biology teacher said men are essentially sperm containers and that is all. I suggested we also open jars and kill spiders. I think we were both right. She was a great teacher.
Seriously though, the housing stock does not match the market need; yet or regulations, tax structure, subsidies, and habits make the necessary transition difficult.
Wednesday ~ January 18th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Wednesday links: winning the recession | Abnormal Returns
[...] Why has household formation been so slow? (Wonkblog, Modeled Behavior) [...]
Friday ~ February 17th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Brand Growth And Changing Demographics | Employer Branding News
[...] them by the disheartening tag of Generation Jobless. Because of unemployment, young people have been unable to start their own family households. So many are moving back in with their parents that the number of family households is shrinking. [...]