If so many people are leaving Massachusetts, why aren't housing costs going down?
But if so many people are moving away, why don't housing prices go down?
The state's combination of slow population growth and sky-high prices would seem to contradict the basic laws of supply and demand.
Related
:
The simplest explanation is this: Even if people leave the state, Massachusetts is so short on homes that
There is no true estimate of exactly how many homes Massachusetts needs to meet demand right now, because different economists have different ways of measuring these things.
Advertisement
So researchers tend to defer to the most obvious indicator: the
'There is no one perfect measure of the housing shortage,' said Daniel McCue, a senior research associate at Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies. 'The easiest thing to look at is the housing market and the way prices are growing here. That is indicative of extreme demand that the state isn't meeting.'
One recent example: In many parts of the country, home prices have modestly dipped over the last two years due to rising interest rates. Not here. Statewide,
Advertisement
That alone, said McCue, is enough of an indicator that the state needs to build more, much more.
And then there's the broader picture of the state's population trends.
Related
:
Much of
under President Trump.
But immigration has driven population growth here for some time. Domestic migration was negative well before COVID — every year going back to 2014 — while international immigration has been positive. Then there are births in the state, which have outpaced deaths here for years, though that growth has slowed recently. So while people are leaving the Massachusetts, the population is still growing.
And on top of the number of people who live in the state is the number of households they form. That number is also expected to grow over the next ten years, said McCue.
Related
:
Advertisement
Someone forms a new household when they move into a new living arrangement. The simplest example of this is when a young person moves out of their parents' home, and what was one household becomes two.
Household growth has surged in the US in recent years — driven mostly by Millennials — and the same has been true in Massachusetts. Between 2025 and 2035, the state figures some 500,000 Millennial and Gen Z residents will form new households here, exceeding the pace at which Baby Boomer and other older households shrink or move away.
A condo development under construction in Jamaica Plain.
Jessica Rinaldi/Globe Staff
The easiest way to think of that dynamic and how it impacts the housing market in Massachusetts is like this: Picture a couple who raised two children in a Boston suburb. Eventually, those children will move out on their own, forming new households of their own that require housing. Most won't find any place to live in the town they grow up, unless that town has built new housing. At the same time, their parents will still be living in the house they grew up in, now with empty bedrooms, because there are so few smaller options.
What this dynamic means is that the number of people who need housing in Massachusetts will keep growing, even if the overall population does not.
Those are the new households the Healey administration accounted for when it called on the state to build 222,000 new homes between 2025 and 2035. The researchers who helped create that recommendation assumed zero population growth; if they're wrong, of course, the state will need even more.
Advertisement
One somewhat common refrain is that population loss wouldn't be such a bad thing for Massachusetts, because it could lower housing costs. Why is it such a bad thing if the kids move away from the town they grew up in, or even out of the state, if it means demand for new homes will go down?
The answer, said McCue, is that those kids are future workers, who power the state's companies and economy. If they leave, good jobs will follow. Housing costs would drop because of a downturn in the state's economy marked by job loss, companies leaving the state, and a generally weaker Massachusetts.
'That is not a scenario that anyone should be rooting for,' said McCue. 'States with healthy economies don't shrink.'
Andrew Brinker can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Wire
12 minutes ago
- Business Wire
Johnson Fistel Begins Investigation on Behalf of KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. (KLC) Shareholders
SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, PLLP is investigating whether KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. (NYSE: KLC), or any of its executive officers, violated securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to timely disclose material information to investors. Johnson Fistel, PLLP is investigating whether KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. (NYSE: KLC), or any of its executive officers, violated securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to timely disclose material information to investors. Share What if I purchased KLC securities? If you purchased securities and suffered losses on your investment, join our investigation now: [ Click Here to Join the Investigation ] Or for more information, contact Jim Baker at jimb@ or (619) 814-4471. There is no cost or obligation to you. What is this about? The investigation centers on whether KinderCare made false or misleading statements, or failed to disclose key information relevant to investors. On March 20, 2025, the company released its financial results for the fourth quarter and full year of 2024, reporting an operating loss of $89.3 million— a sharp decline from the $48.7 million profit posted during the same quarter the previous year. The company attributed the loss to higher equity-based compensation expenses and reduced COVID-19 reimbursements. Furthermore, its 2025 guidance came in below analysts' expectations. Following this announcement, KinderCare's stock dropped 22.17% the next day. What if I have relevant nonpublic information? Individuals with nonpublic information regarding the company should consider whether to assist our investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the SEC program, whistleblowers who provide original information may, under certain circumstances, receive rewards totaling up to thirty percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, contact Jim Baker at (619) 814-4471 or jimb@ About Johnson Fistel, PLLP | Top Law Firm, Securities Fraud, Investors Rights: Johnson Fistel, PLLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, Georgia, Idaho, and Colorado. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. We also extend our services to foreign investors who have purchased on US exchanges. Stay updated with news on stock drops and learn how Johnson Fistel, PLLP can help you recover your losses. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit Achievements: In 2024, Johnson Fistel was honored to be ranked in the Top 10 Plaintiff Law Firms by the ISS Securities Class Action Services. This recognition underscores our effectiveness in advocating for investors, having recovered approximately $90,725,000 for aggrieved clients in cases where we served as lead or co-lead counsel. This notable accomplishment marks the eighth occasion our firm has been recognized as a top plaintiffs' securities law firm in the United States, as determined by the total dollar value of final recoveries. Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Johnson Fistel, PLLP has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Frank J. Johnson is the attorney responsible for its content.
CNBC
42 minutes ago
- CNBC
The most surprising benefits of a 4-day workweek, from a researcher who's studied thousands of cases: 'We never expected' it
Juliet Schor has been studying the benefits of working less for decades. She published her first book on the topic, "The Overworked American," in 1992. It hit a nerve: The book landed her on the The New York Times' bestseller list, into rooms with big-name CEOs and on the phone with policymakers in Washington, D.C. Then, the issue died; plans to experiment with shorter workdays and workweeks didn't pan out. The events of 2020 change everything. The Covid-19 pandemic and widespread loss of life, combined with a reimagining of how people live and work, led many to realize "it was more important to be living the life they they wanted to lead, and that was not a life of overworking stress and burnout," Schor tells CNBC Make It. In recent years, Schor, an economist and sociology professor at Boston College, has been a lead researcher with 4 Day Week, a global group of business leaders and experts studying the impacts of a shortened workweek on companies and their employees. By the summer of 2024, 245 organizations and more than 8,700 employees across the U.S., Canada, Ireland, the U.K., Australia and more had piloted 4 Day Week experiments, which primarily uses a four-day, 32-hour week model with no reduction in pay. Employees rated their work-life balance higher after shortening their weeks; they experienced less burnout, stress and anxiety, and better mental and physical health. Business profits grew and turnover disappeared. Schor compiled these findings in her latest book, "Four Days a Week," and spoke with CNBC Make It about her research. Here, she covers the experiments' biggest surprises, why more companies won't try the shortened week, whether it could lead to pay cuts and how AI advancements fit in the picture. CNBC Make It: What are the most surprising results you've seen from four-day workweek trials? Schor: The big jump in self-reported productivity is pretty striking. Beyond maintaining productivity, people just feel so much better. They feel on top of their work and their life, and they're not stressed out. They feel recovered when they come to work on Monday morning. They feel more eager to do work. They feel like they can get it done. That productivity bump they get, of feeling so good about their work quality, that has a big positive impact on their overall well-being, which we never expected. I thought that second job-holding would go up. It doesn't. In fact, on average, it falls. People really are taking that day for themselves. The pace of work didn't speed up. You'd think everybody just works really hard on those four days to get everything in. But it's a company-wide work reorganization. If the four-day workweek is so good for businesses and employees, why don't more places do it? I think the answer to that is the same answer to: Why is it that so many companies are trying so hard to get people back in the office when they don't want to go back, and when the companies have been really successful with work from home? I think there are two things: One is there's a sense in which the companies have to give up control if they're giving people more time back. Management doesn't like that. For some of these return-to-office mandates, they're really more about control than they are about performance. Second, it feels radical and risky. That's why it helps for these companies to go through a six-month or year-long pilot and see how it goes. The five-day week is very ingrained. On the other hand, Friday is kind of organically evolving in a way that is pretty clear. There's less and less work being done on Friday. Most companies don't reorganize things for Summer Fridays, they just give people that time. You're not losing a whole day's worth of productivity, because it's already a less productive day. We are evolving away from the full Friday workday. I think we need to accelerate that process. Could the four-day workweek lead companies to pay their employees less? To be in our trials, you cannot reduce pay at all. That's a requirement. I don't think cutting pay would work. People hate pay reductions that are not voluntary. Some people may ask for a trade-off of working less for less money. But for the most part, people have commitments for the money they have at any current time. Many people in our economy aren't earning enough, and so they're struggling to meet their needs. I think management would be very foolish to just try and take money away from people, because they will hate it. The standard payment model says people should get whatever their productivity is. So with this four-day week where you're not seeing a reduction in productivity, you shouldn't have a change in pay. We also see people stop quitting four-day-week jobs. The resignation rates just pretty much go to zero in many of these companies. That's where management could maybe take advantage and decide to give lower wage increases over time. I think that's possible as more companies do it. But the countervailing trend to that is they're adopting AI that makes people a lot more productive. And so the standard models say they should get wage increases as a result. Could AI speed up the four-day workweek? Could it eliminates jobs? It's really hard to keep everyone in jobs if you're displacing labor with technology. And increasingly, economists are finding that the job-killing potential of AI is really high. We're faced with two possibilities. One is: We lay off huge numbers of people, and I don't think we're going to be able to re-employ them all in a timely fashion. Then we have an economic catastrophe on our hands. Or: We gradually reduce hours per job so that as people get more productive, we're not cutting employment, we're just having people spend less time at work. If you have that productivity increase from AI, it can go to give people more free time, in which case their income stays more or less the same. Or it can go toward more work and more money. But if you have so much productivity growth, the companies can't necessarily expand that much. So what if you can suddenly produce twice as much? Is there somebody there who's going to buy that twice as much? Where's all that demand going to come from? The labor market doesn't seem favorable to workers right now. Does the four-day workweek really have momentum in the current environment? It's a very mixed picture in the job market right now. For some occupations, for AI reasons or others, it's hard to get a job. But there are others where employers are having difficulty filling positions, and they're not getting people back into the office. The latest data around hours worked at home are really steady. They are just not going down. Of course, if we have a big recession, then lots of things change. But I think we're still on a path toward moving in that direction. If you look at the numbers on stress, burnout, disengagement, people struggling in their jobs and so forth — they were at record levels during the pandemic, and they have come down since then, but not by that much. And I think that creates ongoing momentum to normalize a four-day week. Is the goal of these experiments ultimately to make the four-day workweek the national standard by law? I reached out to the head of a manufacturing company that was in our trials about possibly testifying on Senator Bernie Sanders' bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to set the statutory workweek at 32 hours. This person's response was: I believe very much in this. It's been really great for my company. But I don't believe in legislating it. Typically you need more momentum to get a big change like this in labor law, where you're seeing more of that practice across the economy. Like with Family and Medical Leave Act, many companies already had instituted it before it became a national standard. So we need more big companies to show how viable it is. And then my personal view is that you need legislation to pull the laggards along.
Newsweek
44 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Gen Z is Shifting Back Toward Democrats
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. After months of wavering support and signs of growing disillusionment, new polling suggests Gen Z voters are beginning to drift back toward the Democratic Party. The latest Pew Research data shows that 49 percent of Gen Z voters lean toward the Democrats, while 43 percent lean toward the Republicans. That marks a shift from 2024 when more Gen Z voters leaned toward the Republicans than the Democrats for the first time ever, with 47 percent backing Republicans and just 46 percent identifying as Democrats. Why It Matters In the 2024 election, Trump made inroads with young voters, narrowing the Democrats' traditional lead among Gen Z—a group that has typically leaned left in recent cycles. According to AP VoteCast, voters ages 18 to 29 supported Kamala Harris over Trump by just 51 percent to 47 percent. By comparison, in 2020, Joe Biden carried the same age group by a much wider margin, winning 61 percent to Trump's 36 percent. Now, that shift appears to be reversing among a generation that had showed signs of warming to Trump's populist messaging. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (Democrat of New York) lead House Democrats to a press conference denouncing the Senate-passed spending bill on the steps of the US Capitol... House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (Democrat of New York) lead House Democrats to a press conference denouncing the Senate-passed spending bill on the steps of the US Capitol Building in Washington DC, on Wednesday, July 2, 2025. More Aaron Schwartz/AP What To Know In 2020, Gen Z leaned Democratic by an 18-point margin (55 percent to 37 percent), a gap that widened to 32 points in 2021 (63 to 31). Support narrowed slightly over the next two years, with Democrats holding a 17-point lead in both 2022 and 2023 (55 to 38), before collapsing in 2024. The 2024 shift was widely attributed to economic frustration, discontent with President Biden, and the GOP's increasingly aggressive outreach to younger voters—especially on social media platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram. But the latest numbers suggest Republicans may have peaked, as Democrats begin to regain ground with a generation that strongly supports issues like climate action, abortion rights, and student debt relief. The shift comes as Trump's approval rating among Gen Z has fallen to historic lows. The latest CBS/YouGov survey, conducted between July 16—18 among 2,343 adults, found just 28 percent of voters aged 18 to 29 now approve of Trump's performance, while 72 percent disapprove—a net approval rating of -44. That's down from -20 in early June and -12 in late April. Morning Consult's latest poll, conducted between July 18—20 among 2,202 registered voters, recorded similar numbers: 71 percent of Gen Z disapprove of Trump's job performance, compared with just 24 percent who approve, giving him a net rating of -47. And the poll shows the sharp downturn is being driven by growing discontent over Trump's handling of the economy, inflation, immigration, and key policy decisions. Economic frustration remains the dominant factor. Gen Z voters—many of whom are burdened by rising living costs—have turned sharply against Trump on economic issues. In February, he held a net +4 approval on the economy among young voters. By July, that had collapsed to -42. His approval on inflation fell even further, from -10 in February to -46 by mid-July, amid continued price hikes and discontent over tariffs. Meanwhile, the latest poll showed that nearly half (49 percent) of Gen Z voters now blame Trump's policies for the current state of the economy, while just 14 percent say the same of Biden, and a growing majority—62 percent—believe the economy is getting worse, and 58 percent say they are personally worse off under Trump's second term. His immigration crackdown has also begun to backfire. After briefly gaining support in March, Trump's immigration approval among Gen Z dropped to -40 by July. While the administration has reduced unlawful border crossings and increased enforcement, many young voters are alarmed by expanded ICE raids and detention centers—especially as broader public sentiment moves in the opposite direction. According to new Gallup polling, only 30 percent of Americans now support reducing immigration, down from 55 percent in 2024. Support for maintaining or increasing immigration has grown across party lines, and 79 percent now say immigration is a "good thing"—a record high that surpasses sentiment during Trump's first term. Gen Z's disillusionment extends beyond economics and immigration. A growing majority disapprove of Trump's broader agenda: 71 percent oppose his "Big Beautiful Bill Act," which critics say favors tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of social programs. Meanwhile, 84 percent disapprove of how Trump has handled the Jeffrey Epstein files—the highest disapproval on that issue among any age group. Back in April, polling analysis by pollster G. Elliott Morris showed that young voters are not particularly fond of Trump's policies, with his immigration and tariffs policies attracting the largest amount of discontent from Gen Z. Morris argues that Gen Z's shifting political behavior is less about ideological alignment and more about disaffection with the political system itself. As he puts it, "young people weren't very 'Trumpy' to begin with, and they're not particularly prodemocratic now. Instead, they're anti-incumbent." Rather than being deeply partisan, Morris describes young voters as viewing politics "as a transaction, rather than a contest between ideas." In his view, their vote is less about loyalty to a candidate or party and more about asking, "what have you done for me lately?" He paints a bleak picture of Gen Z's reality, noting that for many, "the economic future looks out of reach, and it seems like the government isn't doing much here at home to help you, in particular." This fuels what he calls a "scarcity, anti-system, anti-party mindset," where even traditionally left-leaning young voters are willing to turn on Democrats—or Trump—when they feel neglected. In explaining why Gen Z turned on Trump after briefly supporting him in 2024, Morris writes: "If young people are mostly just elastic, anti-system voters, then the young Trump converts in 2024 aren't really MAGA Republicans so much as stressed-out, ideologically unaware, alienated young adults, in want of a party." And in his conclusion, Morris sums up the dynamic driving Gen Z's political volatility: "Young people did not move toward Trump in 2024 because they're more MAGA, they moved toward Trump because they're sensitive to economics and don't trust 'the system.' And that's ultimately why Trump has lost them, too." What Happens Next Party affiliation data is likely to fluctuate throughout Trump's second term.
