Don’t Miss a Post. Subscribe now.

Renters Surpass Homeowners in 41% of Zip Codes in the 50 Largest U.S. Cities

Table courtesy of RentCafe

RentCafe reports 101 Zip Codes Switch From Homeowner to Renter Majority

  • A diverse set of 23 large and mid-sized cities transitioned from owner- to renter-majority between 2010 and 2020.
  • Renting is at the highest level in half a century, with 43.7 million households currently living in rentals.
  • As many as 101 zip codes switched to renter majority in the past decade.
  • Renters surpass homeowners in 41% of zip codes in the 50 largest US cities.
  • Downtown areas became more popular for renters in 2020 compared to 10 years prior.
  • Of the new renter majority zip codes, 43240 in Columbus, OH saw the fastest increase in the number of renters.
  • San Antonio’s 78215 is the top trending zip code for renters in the nation, tripling its renter population in ten years.
  • One-third of this decade’s renters now say that it’s a matter of choice.

The first zip code on the list is 43240 in Columbus, OH. About 68% of the people living in Columbus’ 43420 are renters — as a result of a whopping 157% increase in the last 10 years. A densely populated area, the zip code largely overlaps with the Polaris neighborhood, which is home to a community of young renters with a median age of 31. Here, residents earn a per capita income of $43,000 — 25% higher than that of the Columbus metro area, per Census data.

Next up is followed by Chicago’s 60606, which coincides with the West Loop neighborhood. In this area, the number of renters grew by two and a half times in a decade (151%). A thriving community that flaunts a 63% renter population, its residents are mostly Millennials and Gen Zers with high academic achievements.

Renting Peak 

Number of Renters courtesy of RentCafe

The number of renters is at a peak but the share of renters is nowhere close to a peak.

HomeOwnership Rate in US 

Homeownership rate from St. Louis Fed, annotations by Mish

From 2018 to 2020 bidding wars broke out and home prices accelerated. 

As boomers retire, downsize, then die, homeownership rates will decline further, especially with the Fed attempting to burst the housing price bubble it created via QE interest rate suppression.

Mortgage News Daily 30-Year Rate

Mortgage News Daily 30-Year Rate – October 17, 2022

The average 30-year fixed rate mortgage has soared to 7.12 percent. 

Home prices have barely started to fall.

Home Prices Start to Decline, How Low and How Fast Will They Fall?

Case-Shiller home price data via St. Louis Fed, chart by Mish

Prices have peaked How Low and How Fast Will They Fall?

Case-Shiller lags. July is the latest data and that represents sales primarily made in May and June so the declines shown are undoubtedly understated.

No one knows for sure. But the longer home prices stay elevated, the longer economic weakness will last. 

Existing Home Sales

Existing home sales data via St Louis Fed, chart by Mish

We have not seen downturns like this outside of recessions.

For discussion, please see Existing Home Sales Decline Every Month Since February, Down 0.4 Percent in August

Great Recession Comparison

Unlike the Great Recession, this housing bubble lacks liar loans and the intense speculation of 2005-2008.

Nor will people be walking away from debt because most have positive equity.

On the job front, I expect a minimal rise in unemployment.

Where to From Here?

Prices will slowly decline but 6 and 7 percent interest rates will kill affordability for years to come. Even 15 or 20 percent declines would be insufficient to stir up the massive surge in demand we saw from 2020 on.

Many will become locked to their homes, unable or unwilling to move. Who wants to sell their house with a 2.5% mortgage to buy a home with a 7.0% percent mortgage?

Negative price pressure will come from downsizing or dying boomers and those who have no mortgage.

When children inherit a house, they will sell. There will be a big wave of forced selling in the future, but not now.

Expect a Long Period of Weak Growth, Whether or Not It’s Labeled Recession

Housing tends to lead the economy into and out of recessions. This slowdown is taking a toll on the economy now.

But unless the Fed comes to a quick rescue, housing will be in the doldrums for a long time.

A Big Housing Bust is the Key to Understanding This Recession

Add it all up and you have a long period of slow economic growth that borders in and out of recession for years.

For discussion, please see Expect a Long Period of Weak Growth, Whether or Not It’s Labeled Recession

Housing leads recessions and recoveries and housing rates to be weak for a long time.

Add it all up and you have the opposite of the Covid-recession, a long period of economic weakness with minimal rise in unemployment.

It does not matter whether you label this a recession or not. Besides, the NBER might not even announce the recession until it’s over. That happened once already.

This post originated at MishTalk.Com

Please Subscribe!

Like these reports? I hope so, and if you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish 

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Comments to this post are now closed.

50 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
david halte
david halte
3 years ago
Some of these locations are suburban neighborhoods, not downtown metro areas as expected. It’s been reported about a quarter of home sales are to corporate investors. The remainder of these rental properties must be retail investors. The statistics are not an account of the increasing number of renters. The figures indicate lack of housing because of investment properties.
whirlaway
whirlaway
3 years ago
This is common in a lot of Third World countries. Homes are so unaffordable to most people and they end up becoming lifelong renters. The US is there now. One of the greatest “triumphs” of Reaganomics, which both the political parties have adopted for decades – the Republicans overtly, and the DONORcrats slyly.
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
3 years ago
“On the job front, I expect a minimal rise in unemployment.”
I’m fading that call.
hhabana
hhabana
3 years ago
Reply to  Tony Bennett
I see help wanted signs everywhere.
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
3 years ago
“Nor will people be walking away from debt because most have positive equity.”
Sure. For now.
Things change, however.
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
In my area part f the SF Bay Area, it was rare over the past few years to see any apartment rental signs posted. Now they are popping up all over.
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
good to hear
Zardoz
Zardoz
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
Seeing stuff sit on Craigslist in my area as well. Looking forward to a better place when this lease is up.
Nasty Edwin
Nasty Edwin
3 years ago
Job losses will come. An earnings recession is right around the corner. Once you have an earnings recession you have layoffs. Once you have layoffs you have people needing to sell their homes with no buyers in sight. When home values drop, and they will, those that had heavy equity will find themselves with little equity, and the equity they do have, they will be unable to access
Christoball
Christoball
3 years ago
Reply to  Nasty Edwin
Not being able to borrow against your home because of no equity or negative equity will be a game changer.
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
3 years ago
Reply to  Nasty Edwin
Thank you.
A comment with a voice of reason.
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
Reply to  Nasty Edwin
the only fly in that ointment is demographics. boomers bubble retiring. they still need maids and doctors and everything in between. jobs are gonna be plentiful for a long long time.
Christoball
Christoball
3 years ago
So many towns are economically incestuous. Smaller towns because of family control. Company towns because of only one game in town. Medium sized towns because of only one or two primary employers. Larger towns because of an entrenched investment class. So many people want to get out of where they are as soon as they can no matter what. When things boil down to its who you know rather than what you know it is never a good thing.
Free Money 449
Free Money 449
3 years ago
It means the public has decided not to be bag holders in this false inflated housing bubble.
spa sidechats
spa sidechats
3 years ago
The corp slumlords tried to buy up the stock of homes in my older McMansion neighborhood. Didn’t work out. They did rent some but most are just sitting there. Price point too high for renting. Once they realized that it stopped. There are some for sale right now but the buying splurge has halted. The housing market in this area doesn’t care about the economy. Good mix of old and young earners. Steady cycle. I think it’s due to the large yards and massive senior trees. A very specific niche. If you want that we got it but the prices don’t budge. Even in 08. Never moved.
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
3 years ago
No surprise. I live in Woodstock, GA. Nice area but not the Ritzy John’s Creek down the road. Try $860K for less than 2,700 SF on a 1/10th acre lot that has street parking / no garage. Just absolutely, stupefying crazy:
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
4 bad, 4 bath
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
Ha! Don’t complain. Here’s a sample of three in my general area.
$1,850,0003 bd2 ba 1,550 sqft
904 Larkspur Dr, Burlingame, CA 94010
$1,998,0002 bd3 ba 1,316 sqft
1109 Dufferin Ave, Burlingame, CA 94010
$1,758,0002 bd1 ba 950 sqft
917 Azalea Ave, Burlingame, CA 94010
hhabana
hhabana
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
I was in that area in 2000 looking at possibly moving out there and renting. The prices north and south of SF were crazy high. One of the best things that happened to me was that I did not move out there.
MPO45
MPO45
3 years ago
Many will become locked to their homes, unable or unwilling to move. Who wants to sell their house with a 2.5% mortgage to buy a home with a 7.0% percent mortgage?
It’s time for data driven analytics!
A $300,000 home with a 3.0% mortgage rate would have a monthly payment of $1265.
A $300,000 home with a 7.3% mortgage rate would have a monthly payment of $1996.
The difference is $731. A person making a $100,000 salary that is offered a 22% raise to move across country would earn
$122,000. $22,000/12 = $1833 more in income. $1833 > $731.
I doubt a low mortgage rate would keep people from moving. The best thing to do anyway is to rent out your 3% mortgage home and buy a new one. And before anyone asks why I picked $100k salary, that’s the salary needed to have a $300k home at 30% debt/income. And before anyone asks why I chose 22% raise, it’s because that is a very conservative number for people making 100k. Often the raises are 30% to 50%.
As a landlord, it is pleasing to see more people renting. It means higher rents and more profits.
Keep the good news coming Mish! I am still trying to find the right properties in Chicago. There is actually a shortage of housing for sale here if you can believe that!
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  MPO45
My only quibble is that you assume the 22K is tax free. If that 100K person is in a 30% tax bracket at that income level (the final 22K of income) from state/federal/social security etc) then they only clear 15.4 and that means only 1283 more income. If 731 of that is eaten in mortgage payment then your moving cross country for only a few hundred dollars a month. I wouldn’t do that if I was single (much less in a family) and I’ve moved cross country a few times for jobs.
Your right that a raise would need to be in the 50% range to make it worth while.
MPO45
MPO45
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
“If 731 of that is eaten in mortgage payment then your moving cross country for only a few hundred dollars a month.”
And this is where most people fail in growing their careers. You are not thinking long term. The FIRST move is only for a few hundred per month, the second will be for a few hundred more then the third will be even more until you are in the thousands range. Most people don’t want to do that, they want to stay near their family/friends/high school/etc so they miss out.
Case in point, Ohio is supposedly building a whole bunch of microchip plants moving forward, I looked at the demographics, they don’t have enough people to fill all the jobs, those that move to take advantage will be far more successful than those who choose to stay where they are at and so it goes. I’ve moved 3 times in the last 3 years and it was worth it every time. Picked up properties and converted them to rentals when I left. I only wish I had done this 20 years ago and I’d own triple the properties.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  MPO45
3 time in 3 years. Wow. Good for you, but not everyone wants to do that when it means making an entirely new social circle, finding the right schools for kids, paying thousands or even tens of thousands to move factoring in selling a home (unless your high enough to get moving paid for but if you are, you aren’t a young worker) etc. In other words only a tiny portion of the population (1% at best) would or even could move 3 times in 3 years getting 20+K type raises each time to make it worth while so its not really a career path that people can follow.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
“In other words only a tiny portion of the population (1% at best) would or even could move 3 times in 3 years getting 20+K type raises each time to make it worth while so its not really a career path that people can follow.”
It’s also not viable for anyone not either a used car salesman or a burger flipper. Any organisation involved in doing anything even remotely complex, will spend more than a year getting new hires to the point of even remotely paying for themselves.
To be Toyota, you need Toyota like retention. Absent that, you end up no different from any other value-destroying, net-negative ward-of-central-bank-theft-and-nothing-but Tesla.
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
most people move for personal reasons. jobs. kids. weather. boredom……..
of course in past century the mobility has gone way down, as rich folks tend to not NEED to move. this is a good thing, but it is right. i saw plenty of folks in the panic of 2007 to 2012 move from AZ to different parts of north america because of desperation. back to mexico, or canada, or moving to CA or TX……………when the you know what hit the fan………….
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
Reply to  MPO45
You’d struggle to pass any class in “Data Driven Analytics;” possibly even one taught by Paul “magic Fairy Dust” Krugman; by building your “analysis” around the macroeconomic viability of a meaningful number of people moving back and forth across the country and collecting $20+K every time they passed the Mississippi……
In reality; unless you happen to be some highly unusual SuperLandlord; with truly exceptional skills at landlording compared to all the other aspiring landlords out there; landlording is about the most commoditised activities in existence. There are NO economic profits in it. There is nothing landlord A can do, that landlord B; the dude who is happy to landlord in exchange for a buck a century; could not also do.
In addition, the costs of landlording increases with distance to landlorded property. Living in California landlording an apartment in Queens, is more costly than living next door in Queens.
And, furthermore, accumulating depreciating assets never have been, never will be, a means of getting neither rich nor ahead. It makes not one iota of difference whether the asset is a loaf of San Francisco sourdough bread, or a house: The mold ain’t working for you in the long run.
The sole reason it has been possible for those less than altogether economically literate to not pick up on something so trivial wrt specifically housing, is that The Fed and Government have been redistributing wealth hand over fist: From once-were world-beating productive American enterprises, to play-office “landlords”, “investors” and other net-negative dilettante beneficiaries of debasement driven redistribution.
Every penny soma play-office landlord have “made” by sitting there, has to be created by some economically gainful activity. It doesn’t just magically pop into being on account of Washington’s head being printed on paper pieces. Nor from a thuggish state running around banning productive people from supplying covered space if they feel they can do so at less than the currently prevailing prices. It’s not like neither sitting there “landlording” nor banning others from adding economic value, somehow creates any value on its own.
Instead, all that value has to be redistributed, aka stolen, from someone else who had to create it by doing productive work. Aka, it added/ads to the cost of creating value. To the point where noone bothers anymore, since their costs are so high they can’t compete with those paragons of economic efficiency and calculation: The Chinese Communists. So, value is not being created in America anymore. Rendering the only source of “income” getting redistribution, by force of government’s guns and printing presses, from someone else.
I suppose, who cares? As long as government is able to keep redistributing in the direction of “landlords” and “investors”; it’s not like your advice is bad in individual terms. But it doesn’t scale. Everyone “getting out of the grind” by instead renting out 6 or 7 properties to eachother, doesn’t exactly sound like the most sustainable of national economies, does it? But that’s where we’re at. For now. And like all Ponzis and other scams, this one will likely provide the illusion of “working” as well. Until it doesn’t.
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
Reply to  StukiMoi
correct to a point. all governments around the world, in all of history has given special status and goodies to men that create housing, factories, jobs, energy, armies……………….it’s just what humans do. i agree we cannot all shampoo each others dogs, as IKE explained, long ago.
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
3 years ago
Reply to  MPO45
C’mon, MPO … you know better.
1) Renters treat property like a rental. Maintenance costs more than owner occupied.
2) If you move cross country you WILL NEED a property manager. The ones I know get at least 10% of monthly rent.
3) No mention of where on the amortization schedule. If near end of a 15yr or 30yr mortgage homeowner paying nearly all principal. Would take a stick a dynamite to get me out. If early in schedule – when nearly all interest in monthly – little equity built (outside of appreciation) easier to move.
hhabana
hhabana
3 years ago
Reply to  MPO45
I’m a landlord as well. I’m below market on my properties, but recently raised everyone. I’ve had people living in my homes (paid off) for over 10 years. I’m grateful.
I’d like to buy more in the future, but waiting.
This news posted by Mish is depressing. Why, because we are becoming a country of rich and more poor and less Middle Class. Both political parties are a poison to this country!!! Unfortunately, the morons that continuously vote these people in and support the MIC and its wars (Ukraine, Syria and all these military bases around the world), welfare bums both domestic and international are as guilty as the politicians.
So, eat your spam and I will have my steak thanks to my renters. You jerks with your jerk politicians deserve what you get.
Zardoz
Zardoz
3 years ago
Reply to  hhabana
It’s not gonna change until we have ranked choice voting, both parties are awful enough that a solid case can be made to vote against them.
cloud jockey
cloud jockey
3 years ago
Reply to  MPO45
I am literally buying a house this week. Keeping house in Ohio. Tax benefits going to Texas bought the house.
Result, house at south padre for free.
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
“…the longer home prices stay elevated, the longer economic weakness will last.”
With the mortgage on a median priced home having gone up $500/month in just over a year…not long.
klausmkl
klausmkl
3 years ago
Mish, it’s walking away, not waking away.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Interesting. Wild guess. Perhaps boomers are selling now, and cashing out their equity for their retirement?
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
There’s $67T in baby boomer assets set to roll over to beneficiaries in the coming 20-30 years.
That’s a crap ton of inflationary money, people! For the most part, it puts to shame most anything Congress & the Fed will be able to do over the same time frame.
Unless there’s a couple great financial resets along the way, home price inflation only has one way to go: UP, UP and AWAY!
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
Definitely a crap ton, over that ~30 year span amounts to about 10% of current GDP.
The flip side, birth rate now matches Boomers retiring.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
Why is that inflationary? Its a transfer of assets from one owner to another owner. Same amount of assets. Same amount of money.
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
It’s funds above and beyond regular earnings, though I suspect having a hand-me-down nest egg tends to induce a lack of ambition that will offset it. (An 18 yr old knowing he has a mil coming…)
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  MarkraD
Actually, my original point was that boomers were selling their homes to cash out their home equity and help fund their retirement. So they are the ones spending the money, not 18 year olds. And I suspect the majority of them will be cautious with the money so they don’t run out. Though this is all speculation on my part.
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
bingo. it’s a nothing burger on inflation. perhaps less money spent on boomer goods and more on future middle age. but a big nothing.
Christoball
Christoball
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
30% of baby boomers are already dead. Not sure more deaths are going to enrich us.
Zardoz
Zardoz
3 years ago
Reply to  Christoball
Soylent Green was set in 2022…
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
“When children inherit a house, they will sell. There will be a big wave of forced selling in the future, but not now.”
Will they?
If so many are renters, why wouldn’t they just move into a home that they own free and clear? Even if they don’t want to move into the home (maybe they live in another city or the home isn’t close to their job), why sell when you can rent out the home and make money on the rent (you can hire an agency to do the rental for you) and potentially retire there. In other words, I am not sure kids of boomers are going to sell their parents homes at significant numbers. On the other hand, boomers may have to sell if they get put into a nursing home or other care (you can’t own assets) but again it would make more sense to pass on to kids before going into a home.
Mish
Mish
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
1. Multiple kids – house needs to be sold and assets split
2. Location – house likely not where kids live
MPO45
MPO45
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
I spend a great deal of time online researching what different age groups do from boomers to zoomers. There has been a very aggressive movement in younger generations to do the FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early). If boomers leave property to their kids or grandkids, I suspect many would jump on the rental bandwagon. The goal of many young people seems to be to own 4 or 5 properties and rent them out for $1500 to $2000 each which would generate $7500 to $10k/month in income. Move overseas to a lower cost country and you’re done working “the grind” from that point forward.
You see me write about millions of boomers leaving the workforce and keep raising the concern that there will be no one left to do the work needed to keep America going, it’s because younger people mostly want out. I am now helping my own kids start their rental property journey as well along with teaching them investing in stocks, bonds, options, etc. because “no one wants to work anymore.”
It’s always interesting to me the contrast between boomer views here and non-boomers. Always easy to spot in how they think. This post and thread shows it all.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  MPO45
It’s the hustle economy for Zoomers. Boomers essentially worked 1 job at a time and often for their entire lives at the same one. Zoomers, at least ones that one to be successful have a side hustle or two because it’s the only way to get ahead.
As a Gen-Xer, if my parents leave me their home, I won’t be selling it, I’ll buy my sister out of her half and then I’ll be renting it or more likely retiring to it for 6 months at a time (summertime in Canada). Exactly as you suggested and as I hinted at in my initial post.
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
sounds like a ton of folks i talk with in my r/e discussions as a landlord and also as a renter. i do both at the same time. i’m a great landlord. but my landlord is also great.
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
Reply to  MPO45
100% correct. as a lifelong landlord, trading in and out, in the decade up, half decade down long term trends, as a boomer, but in close business and school contact with younger generation there is a huge difference. mish gets real estate fantastically and helped me over the past 15 years, but i think he misses the sensibilities of the younger generation. boomers are brats mostly. life was easy. younger generation is more similar to the greatest generation in outlook on life. and btw, many wealthy countries have a renting bias. i think the us might be maturing in this regard. i vote in us and EU. r/e landlording is the easiest path to after tax increase in net worth. it’s much more work than just investing in paper like equity debt or FX. i love that the most. so easy. only 2 decisions to make. when to buy and sell. r/e landlording is constant decisions and much more work like activities. hat tip mish to this analysis. tis great. r/e pricing is coming down. cap rates will be decent in another 5 years is my bet.
Zardoz
Zardoz
3 years ago
Reply to  MPO45
It’s smart to separate from work. Makes you immune to the threat of unemployment or exploiting… particularly if you don’t have valuable skills…and those don’t come cheap or easy.
Salmo Trutta
Salmo Trutta
3 years ago
The 2yr rate-of-change in long-term money flows, proxy for inflation, exceeded all prior growth rates in Nov. 2020. It has yet to fall back below that previous all-time high. The acceleration in inflation was a given.
Total Checkable Deposits (DISCONTINUED) (TCD) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)
Required reserves, which were set to zero, were based on total checkable deposits.

Decorate Your Walls with Mish Fine Art Images

Click each image to view details or purchase in the store.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.