Point2Point notes 83 Out of 200 Large Cities See Rise in One-Person Households.
In the past decade, the share of single-person households went up significantly in America’s largest cities. Whether they rent or own, residents from established urban areas are increasingly living on their own. According to the 2019 National Association of Realtors, Home Buyers and Sellers Generational Trends Report, although the largest share of homebuyers is still represented by married couples – at 63% – single women are the next-highest significant cohort at a staggering 18%, followed by single males (9%).
Adding to the trend of the big city driving out one key demographic and encouraging single living, the number of unrelated people living together has gone up, as well. Defined as a multi-person household where at least one member is not related by blood, marriage, adoption or partnership to the other members, the rise in unrelated households and unrelated people sharing a home suggests that city-dwellers are moving in together in order to afford to live in their city of choice.
The high, and increasing demand for housing in some of the busiest, densest American cities sends both home prices and rents into the stratosphere, pushing out many of the residents who can no longer keep up; this leads to a more scattered workforce and to cities losing their sense of community and continuity.
Key Points
- Compared to 2008, the share of single-person households in 2018 went up in 83 of the 200 largest U.S. cities.
- 15 large cities have a share of single-person households greater than 40%, and 98 cities reached a share between 30% and 40%.
- The share of unrelated people living in the same home went up 14% on a national level and has more than doubled in cities like Mesquite, TX; Miramar, FL; Sunnyvale, CA; Midland, TX; Columbus, GA; and McAllen, TX.
- In 2019, 63% of homebuyers were married couples, but single females continued to represent the second-largest homebuying group with a share of 18%, while 9% were single men.
- Further proof that settling down and buying property in the city is prohibitive for most: renter-occupied, single-person households represent the majority, with one-person rentals comprising more than 50% of households in New Orleans, LA; St. Louis, MO; Pittsburg, PA; Cleveland, OH; Atlanta, GA; Cincinnati, OH; Mobile, AL; and Washington, D.C.
- The share of owner-occupied single-person households surpasses rented households in four markets: Salinas, CA, Alexandria, VA, Garden Grove, CA and Augusta, GA.
- Condos and shrinking dwellings are both a solution to the urban housing crunch and a way to perpetuate and bolster the single lifestyle; 25 of the 200 cities included in the study are predominantly condo markets, consisting of more than 50% condos in 2018. An additional 81 are comprised of at least 30% condos.
No Inflation? Really?
Here’s the key line from the above report: The rise in unrelated households and unrelated people sharing a home suggests that city-dwellers are moving in together in order to afford to live in their city of choice.
- As noted a week ago, Real Wages Decline in December, Barely Up From Year Ago.
- Also see Medical Care Costs Soaring Out of Control
Thus, while single-households are high and rising so are unrelated persons living together, because they have to.
Let’s compare single-households to crime rates to investigate overlaps.
Top 10 Most Dangerous
Please consider NeighborhoodScout’s Most Dangerous Cities – 2020
- Detroit, MI: Chance of being a victim 1 in 50
- Memphis, TN: Chance of being a victim: 1 in 51
- Birmingham, AL: Chance of being a victim 1 in 52
- Baltimore, MD: Chance of being a victim: 1 in 54
- Flint, MI: Chance of being a victim: 1 in 55
- St. Louis, MO: Chance of being a victim: 1 in 55
- Danville, IL: Chance of being a victim: 1 in 55
- Saginaw, MI: Chance of being a victim: 1 in 60
- Wilmington, DE: Chance of being a victim: 1 in 61
- Camden, NJ: Chance of being a victim: 1 in 62
Scout lists the top 100. The above list shows the top 10.
Dangerous Cities vs Single Family Households
The featured chart shows 10 of the 15 top single person households are also high in the top 100 crime list.
Broken homes and crime are related but there are other reasons for single person households. And Unrelated persons living together are also on the rise for affordability reasons.
For more on crime rates and murder rates including my home town of Danville, Illinois, please see How George Soros Corrupted Philadelphia’s Justice System.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
was created to help Western men meet and start a relationship with Asian ladies. On EasternHoneys site you will find a vast number of different women from Eastern countries, most of them from Japan, China and South Korea – the most desirable ladies of the East. If you are ready to get acquainted and https://filipino-women.net/ continue to communicate and maybe even marry an Asian woman – is happy to do everything necessary for this. This platform is one of the popular Asian dating sites in the niche.
Single person households cause crime? That’s funny. Looking at those “top” cities, I have a different theory…
For St. Louis, look at the population. It’s St. Louis city, not county. And when you figure that the crime occurs in very specific parts of the city, that number shoots thru the roof. It’s black on black crime predominantly, welfare, and it’s very sad.
If my previous post ever goes thru, the title to the link was “UN calls for investigation after Saudi crown prince implicated in hack of Jeff Bezos’ phone”
This post seems rather pointless, as does the last minute George Soros bash, that appears to unite all the conspiratorial conservatives.
I’ll provide one from the other side to put the universe back in balance…
Is it just a coincidence that Trump’s Saudi & Enquirer buds have Bezos in their crosshairs? Or does King Chaos continue to enlist the help of foreign entities to carry out his personal vendettas?
And so the fulfillment of the twin components of indentured servitude; bondage to some arbitrary connected landlord, and lack of any rights and legal protections whatsoever; are finally achieved by the beneficiary leeching classes of the totalitarian progressive state:
Those designated as patsies, are not only de facto forced to pay everything they make, and more, for some shack The Fed bought for some connected leech. But they can now also be conveniently designated “criminals”, “felons,” what have you. Such that disregarding any of the so-called “rights” the leeching classes like to pretend they care about, are hence perfectly OK.
“The rise in unrelated households and unrelated people sharing a home suggests that city-dwellers are moving in together in order to afford to live in their city of choice.”
…
May I suggest an edit?
The rise in unrelated households and unrelated people sharing a home suggests that city-dwellers are moving in together in order to afford to live ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶c̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶h̶o̶i̶c̶e̶.̶
One of the unintended consequences of LBJ’s “Great Society” programs was a dramatic increase in single parent households. They have not stopped growing, and the article above lists one of the consequences.
Unintended?
You may very well be right, but man does that tell all there is to tell about the sorry state of the brains of the leeching classes.
Surely you don’t think the people who proposed the “Great Society” programs deliberately intended to break up families? I think they just failed to take into account the fact that people will change their behavior to adapt to government programs. If you give more money to single people with children than you do to married people with children, it shouldn’t be surprising when one of the parents moves out of the home.
There was nothing “sorry” about the “state of the brains” of the people who adapted to take advantage of the programs. To the contrary, they proved to be very resourceful. The brains that were “sorry” were the ones that pushed ill-advised programs that led to unintended, and unfortunate, consequences.
LBJ made a remark about people of color and voting for him. It might shine light on his intentions.
LBJ and Moynihan knew that the “great Society” initiative would break up the black urban family. The policy was designed to do just that.
I assume by single person, what they really mean are domiciles owned by individuals and not married couples.
One factor is black kids have a 2 in 3 chance of being born to a single mother. I think the odds are 35% for everyone. So black households are far more likely to be single parent. And blacks are far more likely to commit crimes. So, anywhere there’s a high pct of blacks, you’ll have a high pct of homes owned by individuals and a high crime rate.