Market Conditions: Sales Fall 5.4% YOY in April as the Market Remains Subdued
The Illinois Association of Realtors is out with the April sales data.
This was the heart of the spring buying season but in spite of lower mortgage rates compared to a year ago, sales didn’t pick up.
The city of Chicago saw year-over-year home sales decrease 5.4 percent with 2,555 sales in April, compared to 2,700 a year ago. The median price of a home in the city of Chicago in April was $310,000 up 0.8 percent compared to April 2018 when it was $307,500.
Here are the sales statistics for April since 2007:
- 2007: 2419 sales
- 2008: 1886 sales
- 2009: 1407 sales
- 2010: 1984 sales
- 2011: 1466 sales
- 2012: 1816 sales
- 2013: 2392 sales
- 2014: 2256 sales
- 2015: 2435 sales
- 2016: 2706 sales
- 2017: 2647 sales
- 2018: 2700 sales
- 2019: 2555 sales
Here are the median prices:
- 2007: $289,800
- 2008: $300,000
- 2009: $218,000
- 2010: $225,000
- 2011: $169,000
- 2012: $182,000
- 2013: $223,500
- 2014: $250,000
- 2015: $271,325
- 2016: $286,000
- 2017: $297,500
- 2018: $307,500
- 2019: $310,000
“Sales prices rose but were still relatively low in April, incentivizing buyers to act more quickly on homes they’re watching,” said Tommy Choi, president of the Chicago Association of REALTORS® and broker at Keller Williams Chicago – Lincoln Park. “There continues to be more options as inventory is on the rise. As we get closer to summer, we’ll see a balanced market with benefits for buyers and sellers alike.”
The average 30-year mortgage fell to 4.14% from 4.47% a year ago.
The time it took to sell averaged 54 days. That’s the same time as a year ago.
Statewide inventory dropped by 1.9% to 53,049 from 54,063.
“Prices continue to increase at a modest rate and month-to-month sales have continued to increase, however year-over-year sales are down reflecting the uncertainties in consumer behavior towards house purchases” said Geoffrey J.D. Hewings, director of the Regional Economics Applications Laboratory (REAL) at the University of Illinois.
If it seems like home sales are lower nearly every month, you’re not imagining things.
According to Crain’s, Chicago home sales have been lower year-over-year for the last 9 months. That’s the longest such streak since they were down 13 months during the worst of the bust. That streak ended in June 2011.
I’m surprised “uncertainty from the trade war” wasn’t the excuse given for the continually falling home sales.
Chicago has had tight inventories for several years and has never seen a streak like this.
Isn’t it time for a new analysis about what is going on in the Chicago housing market?
Because with a low unemployment rate, a booming city center, a healthy restaurant and entertainment scene, Chicago’s housing market is lackluster, at best.
Illinois median home prices increase in April; sales lower [Illinois Association of Realtors, Press Release, May 21, 2019]
I’m now looking to sell. I’ve had a 15yr old 2/2 on the market for 2.5 weeks, 7 showings, no offers or seconds. I’m priced the same as other unit s that sold within the last 3 months, but htey had painted kitchens and new counters (white). I’m rocking dark cherry and uba tuba circa 2004.
Should I update it for $5k? Or should I lower the price? Its rented unitl 5/31 so I’ve been shopping around.
It will sell faster to spend the money now, update it, take new pics, relist most renter move-out
Agree. For $5k, it will look $10k “better” (not actually better, just more like all the comps).
And ask the broker to pay half of the $5k from its commission at closing.
Should I update it for $5k? Or should I lower the price? It is rented until 5/31 so I’ve been shopping around.
lower the price. let the next buyer update with their tastes.
I’m the broker and the owner so I have the feedback firsthand.
$2600 to paint the cabinets (my normal guy wanted $5k…)
$3400 for white quartz
Flooring is colored slate – 11X12 with an island in the middle. Thinking about painting that with chalk paint. Thoughts?
“I’m priced the same as other unit s that sold within the last 3 months, but htey had painted kitchens and new counters (white). I’m rocking dark cherry and uba tuba circa 2004.”
As a broker, shouldn’t you know not to price your unit the same as others that have already done some updates?
I would not paint my island in chalk paint.
Until I see market times extending out I’m not calling it a slowdown. There is more condo/ townhome inventory now than last year – 20% more – so the inventory constraint excuse no longer holds water but I think there’s a lot of overpriced stuff on the market. We haven’t had to firesale anything.
Paint the colored slate flooring with chalk paint. Not the island.
As for the price, we are listed $5k over the close price on a $500-550k unit. So we either need to put in some work or discount it enough for the buyer to be willing to put in the work.
Also, I’m not a broker by trade it’s a side gig. It’s also interesting to know condo/town home inventory is up 20%. I’m also seeing more price reductions pop up.
What price point are you at? If your target buyer is a first time buyer, you are competing against a lot of high quality new construction rental with amenities. My personal experience is that first time buyers don’t have tons of resources to start replacing appliances and such. Paint your cabinets. Leave your counters. Upgrade the appliances to new ones. New washer and dryer. For $5k you could put some decent stuff in that is likely light years better than what you have if what you have is the original from developer circa 2004–in which case, what you have is crap and everyone looking at your place knows it is crap relative to what they currently rent.
…And replace your bathroom vanities. Unless those were really nice to begin with, they are likely due for replacing and a new vanity is an economically effective way to transform a bath and is really appealing to a prospective buyer because they get “new” for something they will definitely use a lot.
“Paint the colored slate flooring with chalk paint. Not the island. ”
———————–
Yuck. Painted floors N-E-V-E-R wear well. N-E-V-E-R. You are begging for trouble.
Reduce the price, let the new owners update to their own tastes.
Yup, painting floors never wears well.
This is what I’m dealing with:
https://www.google.com/search?q=colored+slate+floor&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS795US796&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=IzW-Oe1itcfEqM%253A%252CTYKcU34G_AVS0M%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kQLwTk-xyX7LKNyLU5aSe82MpH1TQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjSzeqewbLiAhXlT98KHSMHDR0Q9QEwAXoECAkQBg#imgrc=IzW-Oe1itcfEqM:
Buyers just don’t care for it.
Still better than paint. All the more so with the uneven surface. Reduce your price. It’s a FSBO, remember? You’ve got room to dicker.
Yah – – don’t paint that. If it is actual slate leave it or replace it. If replacing it isn’t in your budget, then I would stain the grout – – that could really transform it.
Replacing it is a big project for a prospective buyer – – but not so much for you a seasoned real estate professional. You should go to tile outlet, find the latest and greatest modern tile in like a 12 x 24 size and just put new floors in. I think new floors and new appliances, new paint and new vanities and you should be in a better position to sell. Also – – as johnc noted, you have room to move on price since you are essentially paying yourself a portion of the commission.
Other option is do nothing and continue to rent and enjoy that depreciation benefit on your taxes…as well as a 199A deduction (pretty sure rental real estate qualifies!)
I’ve been on the market for 3 weeks with 7 showings. Yes I know, everything sells if it’s cheap enough!
“Should I update it for $5k? Or should I lower the price? Its rented unitl 5/31 so I’ve been shopping around.”
I’ve seen many condos get much higher prices simply by doing a few basic things. Yes it could cost up to $15,000-$20,000. But they’ve gotten the money back.
1. Paint the kitchen cabinets white.
2. Put on new hardware.
3. Put in the quartz counter tops and an undermount sink. If the backsplash area isn’t that big, and you can afford it, put in white subway tile.
4. Get rid of the slate floors. Those are out of date. This may be expensive, but no buyer will want to do it. Put in porcelain tile that looks like wood (it’s “in.”)
5. In the bathrooms, either paint or put in new vanities. Also, new mirrors and light fixtures.
6. If the hardwood floors are awful, you may have to get them re-stained.
7. Paint the condo white or light gray.
Look at examples here on Renovation Sells (and no, I don’t have any connection to them. But I think what they do is genius and much needed in this market.)
https://www.renovationsells.com/
“I’ve been on the market for 3 weeks with 7 showings.”
Also, having the renters in the unit is probably hurting it. I can always tell when there is renters in the property. There is more clutter and nothing looks “nice.”
You will probably have better luck once the renters move out but it will expose how much “work” the unit needs too (especially in what the walls and bathrooms look like.) Will probably look more dated without the renters which is why you should do the renovations.
“My personal experience is that first time buyers don’t have tons of resources to start replacing appliances and such.”
This is absolutely true. I sold a totally renovated vintage walk-up unit in Lincoln Park a few years ago during a raging seller’s market. There was a bidding war, and the woman who put in the second highest bid was crushed at having lost. It occurred to me that the mirror unit to mine was owned by an old lady who had not done a thing to the place for 30 years and would love to sell, but just didn’t it together to put it on the market. So I called the realtor representing the 2nd highest bidder to tip her off on the place, pointing out that her client could buy the place for $60,000 less than she had bid on my place, put in around $50,000 with exactly the fixtures and finishes she wanted, and it would turn out just as nice. The realtor nixed the idea on the spot. She pointed out that her client was a first time buyer, and would be putting in every last penny she had to make the down payment, and wouldn’t even have $5,000, never mind $50,000 to put into the unit after moving in. (The place was in barely habitable condition as it was.) Furthermore, she gave me general advice on this matter. (She was a very seasoned and well-known agent.) She said that for a unit that showed badly to compete against an identical completely renovated place, it had to be priced 100% lower than the cost it would take to renovate it. In other words, if it would take $50,000 to renovate that mirror unit to mine, it would have to sell for $100,000 less than what I sold my place for.
I remember this advice, and it has puzzled me since. Every guide I read of what “return” you get on various home improvements shows that you barely get back what you put in in the most popular renovation projects – namely, mid-level kitchen and bathroom renovations, addition of a 2nd or 3rd bathroom, etc etc. Most other improvements get back 75%, 50%, etc, and the work you put in has to therefore have value for YOU while you live there, not be done only for resale. So how could it be true what that realtor told me – that you end up getting 200% back on renovation of a totally dilapidated place? If anyone here has any opinion on this, would like to hear.
That realtor also told me a story to demonstrate how many people are simply also incapable of renovating a place. She had a client who was buying in a new construction where the developer was letting all the buyers go to Merchandise Mart to pick out all their fixtures and finishes rather than giving them a limited choice of picks as if often the case. (Usually all awful options.) So the realtor took her client to pick out all the stuff, and thought it was going to be like taking a kid to a candy store. After about two hours of looking through stuff, the client turned to her and said, “I can’t do this!”, and backed out of the purchase! She was just overwhelmed, and it wasn’t even her who was going have to arrange for the work to be done. She was only being required to pick out the stuff she wanted! People know what they like when they see it already installed in a place! But when they have to do the choosing, they are often completely lost.
Btw, given the small area of the slate floor, and the fact that the island taking up a good part of this area, I do not see this as an automatic necessity to replace. You really have to see a picture of the area to make that determination. I have seen kitchens where the slate floor looks very dated because of the dark cabinets and countertops. But once the cabinets and counters are changed, the slate floor looks perfectly acceptable (if not ideal).
One other thing I have to say about the FSBO aspect of this sale. It is my experience that people selling FSBO always think they should be able to sell their places the same as that the comps show. They expect to capture almost 100% of what their neighbors paid realtors. But this is not realistic. I have sold several FSBOs. The attitude I have already taken is that I am willing to share the savings with the buyers, so we both benefit. Don’t be greedy. You are still going to make more money than your neighbors selling, and being better priced will make your unit stand out.
There is a lot of time, effort, risk, management, and personal grief the go into any renovation project that is not reflected in the cost of the project. A $50,000 renovation project is a lot more than writing a $50,000 check. Buyers know that any required renovation should have a steep selling price discount to account for the renovation effort.
When a home owner does improvements, the rate of return is zero or negative because homes are expected to be kept up to date.
White and gray and quartz. Gross cliches. 2.5 weeks is nothing.
Vissi,
I think both points of view can be true. Buyers do not want to deal with the renovation PITA factor so the discount on the purchase price has to reflect that. And if you really know how to do a renovation you can flip the property and capture that discount as profit.
Those figures on the return on improvements include some projects that are not highly visible – e.g. new roof – or not universally valued – e.g. pool. So the ROI is not there. There is also the fact that owners make design choices that are not universally valued. Successful flippers avoid all those improvements.
“White and gray and quartz. Gross cliches.”
i guess you can say the same thing about cherry, dark granite and beige 15 years ago.
rates down to 4.06
is it helping?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-mortgages-mortgage-rates-fall-053442099.html
sorry quote is from
http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/
I love my cherry and dark granite, they are far more innately attractive than lame quartz and painted white wood, which screams cheap and could be MDF for all it matters when painted. When the time comes to sell I’ll just price it appropriately and let the next person deal with it, rather than rehabbing lemming style to whatever sort of crap is current at that time.
Chicago has tax issues that I believe are slowing the market especially high end.
FWIW NYC seems to have bottomed. Prices down but volumes up. It’s concerning to see falling volumes.
Anything high end though. Is getting murdered on prop taxes and the potential 8% income tax after all the SALT deductions disappeared.
Crains had an article about the high end slow down.
The unit I’m selling is priced at $550 for a 2/2, taxes are pushing $11k.
Last year I sold a 70’s split level builder grade in Arlington for $370 to a youngish couple with kids. I painted the cabinets white but the kitchen was remodeled in the 90’s and the baths had new granite put it 10yrs ago.Taxes on that thing were almost $9k.
Property taxes are high, we will soon be like Jersey. I would say California but most people think it’s worth it to pay taxes because well you’re in California.
“Anything high end though. Is getting murdered on prop taxes and the potential 8% income tax after all the SALT deductions disappeared.”
——————–
My heart pumps Kool-Aid for the high end. Everyone pays their fair share, and the SALT deductions are high enough to help the poor and middle class.
“Anything high end though. Is getting murdered on prop taxes and the potential 8% income tax after all the SALT deductions disappeared.”
Not in the city. That Crain’s article was about the suburbs. Millennials don’t want to live in Barrington or St. Charles. Shocker. High end in the city is as hot as ever. Look at all the high end high rises selling. Even single family homes.
Are they building too many $1 million homes? Probably. But a record number over $3 million have been selling.
So, no, the “potential 8% income tax” (which they’re paying almost 5% right now and which is lower than next door Iowa and other states) is not “murdering” the upper end home market in Chicago.
“I would say California but most people think it’s worth it to pay taxes because well you’re in California.”
Property taxes in California are low because of Prop 13 (unless you’ve bought recently.) This is why people buy one house and never, ever move.
It’s income taxes that are high in California. More than double what Illinois’ are if you’re in the very top bracket.
Does anyone really think Sacramento is all that great? It mostly looks like a Midwest city (without the winter snow but 105 degree summer days.) Is that “worth it?” Who knows. (shrugs.) Everyone makes their own choices.
“Chicago has tax issues that I believe are slowing the market especially high end.”
Chicago’s high end isn’t “slow.” There are bidding wars in some buildings. Million dollar homes in many neighborhoods are selling just fine.
It’s the suburbs that are seeing a slowdown. As Crain’s said- Millennials don’t want to live an hour+ outside of Chicago. They want to live IN Chicago. They also don’t want 5 bedroom, 6 bath houses where nothing has been updated on big lots that they have to mow and take care of.
“When the time comes to sell I’ll just price it appropriately and let the next person deal with it, rather than rehabbing lemming style to whatever sort of crap is current at that time.”
It could take you a long time to sell Sid V. Buyers don’t want to “deal with it.” They are living in luxury apartments with white cabinets and quartz counter tops already. Why would they want to buy an out of date condo?
That goes up and down all the price points.
If you bought 15+ years ago, you have to update or you won’t make money.
“rates down to 4.06. is it helping?”
Not yet. Rates fell below 3.75% in 2016. Property taxes much higher now. Salaries not keeping pace.
“White and gray and quartz. Gross cliches. 2.5 weeks is nothing.”
It doesn’t matter if they are clichés. Look at what is in the NEMA. This is what people are renting. It’s what they like. They are watching Chip and Joanna Gaines on HGTV who put in a white/black/wood kitchen in every single rehab. People love it.
Smart sellers stage their homes to get maximum money. That means giving the buyers what they want. Duh.
“People know what they like when they see it already installed in a place! But when they have to do the choosing, they are often completely lost.”
95% of people don’t have any “vision.” They have no design skills. That’s why everyone goes to West Elm and just buys the entire living room ensemble, down to the lamps.
Same with renovations. They don’t want to pick all the finishes. They don’t know what looks good together. They just want it to look like what they see on tv or on Instagram, once they move in. (this is why more people need to hire an interior designer, as well.)
Heck, how many million dollar homes and condos do we see on this site where the owner hasn’t even put up curtains?
So to do a whole renovation? No way.
Thanks for sharing Vissi.
“Chicago’s high end isn’t “slow.” There are bidding wars in some buildings. Million dollar homes in many neighborhoods are selling just fine.
It’s the suburbs that are seeing a slowdown. As Crain’s said- Millennials don’t want to live an hour+ outside of Chicago. They want to live IN Chicago. They also don’t want 5 bedroom, 6 bath houses where nothing has been updated on big lots that they have to mow and take care of.”
A friendly no, it was the article specifically about the $1-1.5 market in Chicago. The market has softened, not slow. The writer attributed it unknown property taxes and the new assessed values. However, fair enough point
“and painted white wood, which screams cheap and could be MDF”
a lot of new painted cabinets area actually more expensive. they are typically solid maple doors that are factory painted.
I don’t plan on selling for another 7-12 years, but even if I did plan on selling tomorrow I wouldn’t paint my cabinets to placate some theoretical tasteless millenial without vision, who wouldn’t be my target market anyway as of now anyway.
“tasteless millenial without vision”
You think those are the only buyers?
The suburbs are seeing the slowdown as housing tastes have changed for everyone. The rich have lived all over the Chicago area since the city was founded. The real issue here is that there are too many million dollar homes and not enough buyers. The metro area population is stagnant and immigration from lower class immigrants is the only thing keeping the metro population from crashing entirely. 25 years ago a newly married upper middle class couple would move to a rich suburb somewhere to start a life together, whereas today, there are fewer married couples (marriage is a privilege for those who can afford it), and those that are married have fewer children, and often they stay in the city for longer period of times. Those ‘move up’ homes on the north shore, western burbs and other places are languishing as city neighborhoods become gentrified. Which comes back to my point that there just aren’t enough ‘rich’ people to buy all the rich people’s homes. Some formerly wealthier areas have crashed entirely, such as most of the southern suburbs and many of the mcmansions in the exurbs. Unfortunately for the Chicago area, the rich cannot be everywhere at once.
I just read the recent (this weeks) Crains article on McMansions and the Exurbs. Crains ran an article a couple weeks ago about 1-1.5M SFH in Chicago. Two different articles. I agree with Homedelete about the population. Chicagoland is a working class town, meaning your wealthy are Doctors, Lawyers etc….there are few really wealthy folks that don’t have to work.
The avg Millennial is pushing 30, that’s the new 21, ha.
Plus a lot of big companies have moved non-revenue generating jobs out of the city centers to second tier cities like Phoenix, Salt Lake….
“The rich have lived all over the Chicago area since the city was founded.”
In 1837?
No.
The rich would not have been “all over the Chicago area.” It was nothing. Swampland. Prairie. Not hospitable at all.
“whereas today, there are fewer married couples (marriage is a privilege for those who can afford it),”
This is absolutely untrue.
Stats show that most Americans will get married at some point in their lifetimes. It’s something like 90%. Has always been that high.
Are Americans marrying later in life? Yes.
But that doesn’t mean they aren’t living together or “couples” before they get married at 30.
And now that there is gay marriage, the number of people marrying will probably rise even further.
And what is a “privilege” about getting married?
It costs very little to go to city hall and simply get married. You get the $24,000 deduction on your taxes now too. What’s the privilege of that? Pulease. You’re so dramatic HD. Acting like somehow the l950s were a better era because everyone got married at 19, the women stayed home to cook and clean and have kids, the men hung out at 2-hour lunches with “lingerie shows.”
Is it any wonder the divorce rate skyrocketed for the Baby Boomers?
It was awful.
The divorce rate is way down, by the way.
Sabrina, a simple google search of “marriage rate declining” shows a dozen articles on the first page from “The Marriage Crisis” to “Why millenials refuse to get married” to “U.S. Marriage Rate Drops to New Low” and so on and so on.
The NYT times had an article in 2017 titled:
“Class Divide: How Did Marriage Become a Mark of Privilege?” “Marriage, which used to be the default way to form a family in the United States, regardless of income or education, has become yet another part of American life reserved for those who are most privileged. Fewer Americans are marrying over all, and whether they do so is more tied to socioeconomic status than ever before. In recent years, marriage has sharply declined among people without college degrees, while staying steady among college graduates with higher incomes.”
As for the divorce rate falling, this is true, because fewer people are getting married; but they are still co-habitating and having children.
I do a lot of pro bono child support work all over the chicagoland area and I can tell you with certainty that while divorce is awful, unmarried parents going through the child support process is exponentially worse, in so many ways.
“Acting like somehow the l950s were a better era because everyone got married at 19, the women stayed home to cook and clean and have kids, the men hung out at 2-hour lunches with “lingerie shows.””
Sounds like Dan-Hof’s dream.
“Why millenials refuse to get married”
Nah. You have it all wrong HD. Again, you think this is the 1950s. 90% of people get married at some point in their lives. It’s been that high for a long, long time. You link to all this angst about millennials not getting married. Sure. They’re getting married later now. Average age for men is nearly 30. For women it’s like 28. It’s crazy to think that it was literally almost 10 years earlier for the Baby Boomers.
But most people marry at some point. Yawn. It’s not a big deal.
The biggest disparity in marriage actually happened after the Civil War. There were too many women and not enough men. Over 20% of women never married in that era.
Society has changed. Women can vote! Women can buy their own house without Dad signing the mortgage. Women can work and open up bank accounts. The old need for marriage no longer exists in the United States in the same way it once did.
I posted my May update on Friday. Sales were once again down from last year but only slightly by 2.8%. Market times were not bad. SFH inventory tight but condo inventory rising. The IAR will report sales down by about 5.1%. http://www.chicagonow.com/getting-real/2019/06/chicago-real-estate-market-update-home-sales-sputter-less-than-last-month/
“Society has changed. Women can vote! Women can buy their own house without Dad signing the mortgage. Women can work and open up bank accounts. The old need for marriage no longer exists in the United States in the same way it once did.”
interestingly, professional women are more miserable than ever too… yay feminism!
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/high-octane-women/201109/meet-the-least-happy-people-in-america
https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969
“Society has changed. Women can vote! Women can buy their own house without Dad signing the mortgage. Women can work and open up bank accounts. The old need for marriage no longer exists in the United States in the same way it once did.”
================
And the world has gone to Hell in a handbag ever since.
Next thing you know we’ll have arrant nonsense like “Bucktown goes South of Armitage.”
Humph!
That Psychology Today link is hilarious sonies. Thanks for the laugh.
Would anyone ever think that a 39 year old male with kids at home who made over $200,000 a year with a wife working part-time wouldn’t be happy?
What is he doing? The laundry? The cooking? The cleaning? No. He has that in the wife or he pays someone to come in to do it.
Now the flip side, apparently the 42 year old childless single [professional woman is least happiest. Maybe it’s because in the article it says she’s working a professional job (doctor/lawyer) but apparently makes “less than $100,000 a year.”
That pretty much sucks.
But in all reality, it’s single women without children who actually ARE the happiest (of all income levels, not just white collar workers like that article talked about in Psychology Today.)
It’s men who can’t be alone. Men should get married at all costs. Women should not.
https://nypost.com/2019/05/28/unmarried-women-are-the-healthiest-and-the-happiest-professor/
This is the problem right? Millennial women have figured it out. They are marrying later and later now. They have good careers. Can vote. Can run for Congress. Can be a judge. Can fly a plane. Can be in the military. Can even go to the sperm donor if they want children.
Feminism rocks. Hopefully there will be even more breakthroughs for GenZ. For our daughter’s sakes.
HD sez
“today, there are fewer married couples (marriage is a privilege for those who can afford it), and those that are married have fewer children…”
Sabrina quotes that line and replies:
“This is absolutely untrue. Stats show that most Americans will get married at some point in their lifetimes. It’s something like 90%. Has always been that high.”
HD tells her to read this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/upshot/how-did-marriage-become-a-mark-of-privilege.html
Sabrina replies:
“Nah. You have it all wrong HD. Again, you think this is the 1950s. 90% of people get married at some point in their lives. It’s been that high for a long, long time.”
“But most people marry at some point. Yawn. It’s not a big deal.”
Pew Research (2014) sez:
“the share of American adults who have never been married is at an historic high. In 2012, one-in-five adults ages 25 and older … had never been married…. In 1960, only about one-in-ten adults (9%) in that age range had never been married.”
“The share of never-married adults has gone up for all major racial and ethnic groups in the U.S., but the rate of increase has been most dramatic among blacks. Among black adults ages 25 and older, the share who has never been married has quadrupled over the past half century—from 9% in 1960 to 36% in 2012. For whites, the share has doubled (from 8% to 16%).
“young adults [are] much more likely than older adults to say society is just as well off if people have priorities other than marriage and children…. Today’s young adults are slow to tie the knot, and a rising share may end up not getting married at all.”
“Looking at cohorts of young adults ages 25 to 34 going back to 1960, there has been a steady increase since 1970 in the share that remains never married by the time the cohort reaches ages 45 to 54.”
“In 1960, some 12% of adults ages 25 to 34 had never been married. After 10 years, when that group was between the ages of 35 and 44, [only] 7% of them still hadn’t wed. By 1980, when they were in their mid-40s to -50s, only 5% had still never married. The next cohort starting in 1970 followed a similar trajectory. However, each new cohort of young adults since then has had a higher share of never-married members than the cohort that came before it. If current trends continue, 25% of young adults in the most recent cohort (ages 25 to 34 in 2010) will have never married by 2030. That would be the highest share in modern history.”
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/#race-ethnicity-and-marriage
Sabrina concludes by informing readers:
“The biggest disparity in marriage actually happened after the Civil War. There were too many women and not enough men. Over 20% of women never married in that era.”
A quick google search turns up this report, the first paragraph of which states a contrary conclusion:
“a modest version of … a marriage squeeze affected southern white women who reached marriage age during the [Civil] war. … However, the results of this study demonstrate that women’s feared spinsterhood failed to materialize over the long term. The vast majority (approximately 92 percent) of southern white women who came of marriage age during the war married at some point in their lives. Indeed, the marriage squeeze on southern women apparent in the 1870 census is no longer evident in the 1880 census.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002115/
That’s a Salesforce Tower sized blind spot!
“The vast majority (approximately 92 percent) of southern white women who came of marriage age during the war married at some point in their lives. Indeed, the marriage squeeze on southern women apparent in the 1870 census is no longer evident in the 1880 census.”
Wow- wojo. So the entire country was made up of “southern white women”?
Thousands of northern men were killed in that war too. Gosh. Imagine that?
But I’m so glad a man is actually googling this. If you want to know more I suggest Rebecca Traister’s excellent: All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation.
“2012, one-in-five adults ages 25 and older”
How much older???
Women, and men, are both marrying later. No one is surprised by that. In 1960 it was like 20 years old for women. Now it’s 27 or 28. But that doesn’t mean they’re NOT getting married. For many, it’s just later.
But really, the motivation for women to get married is now gone. Women can work in their chosen professions, buy homes, travel. And they don’t need men to take care of the house because they can just go on an app and hire someone. In fact, Rebecca Traister argues that it was full service apartment buildings which were the demise of marriage because women now have maintenance men in their buildings in large cities who can take care of maintenance. Lol.
She argues that fully 40% of women in most of the big cities in America are single.
And with studies showing single women being the happiest, who can blame them?
The birth rate has been slowly falling. Without immigration, the US would be shrinking, especially as the Baby Boomers die.
Marriage isn’t a privilege. It’s lower class who are marrying. The upper middle class don’t need it. More educated women are saying “no” to marriage.
“It’s lower class who are marrying.”
Not supported by the data:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-marriage-divide-how-and-why-working-class-families-are-more-fragile-today
“When it comes to coupling, poor and working-class Americans are more likely to substitute cohabitation for marriage. … [P]oor Americans are almost three times more likely to cohabit, and working-class Americans are twice as likely to cohabit, compared with their middle- and upper-class peers age 18–55.”
…
“Specifically, about six in 10 poor Americans are single, about five in 10 working-class Americans are single, and about four in 10 middle- and upper-class Americans are single.”