Millennials Only Want This One Thing: Home Ownership

This is a viewpoint editorial by Andy LeRoy, the founder of Exponential Layers which is a Lightning Network analytics platform and explorer. This lovely three bed room, 1.5 bath home in Charlotte, North Carolina, is a millennials dream. Total with a yard and a deck for enjoying a coffee, it remains in a prime area simply down the street from a brunch spot with an all-day avocado toast special. For simply $730,000, it can be all yours.We all recognize this house is pricey. A $4,000 month-to-month payment, even after putting $150,000 down, would represent almost 70% of the mean U.S. household earnings, and this home has to do with 1.7 times higher than the U.S. mean house rate of $440,000. Why Is This House So Expensive?The house was integrated in 1938, and its latest offered records reveal its sale history, the earliest being for $88,500 in 1987. This dive from $88,500 to $730,000 is a 725% boost over 35 years, and reflects a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.2%. Thats rather an increase. Over the same time the S&P 500 is up 465% at a CAGR of 5.1%, so is it really that huge of a jump in comparison?What about gross domestic product (GDP), the go-to for measuring financial output? GDP is up from $4.7 trillion to $24.8 trillion in small terms, another triple-digit boost of 427% over 35 years.So everything is up … it makes good sense, right?Charlottes population has grown from 424,000 to 2.2 million over this same time period– 5% CAGR– and this home remains in a terrific neighborhood, so supply and demand? Plus our economy is more productive, so the rise in price is inevitable?All of this checks out on paper, other than for one metric: energy.U.S. energy intake in 1987 was 21,056 TWh of energy, which changed for population at the time represents about 87,000 kWh per person. Of this energy consumption, electricity use was around 11,500 kWh per capita.Compare that to today– the most current figures in 2022 for the United States show per capita energy usage of 76,632 kWh, with a small boost in the amount consumed as electrical energy at 12,466 kWh per person.For all of the talk of “strolling uphill both methods” in previous generations, it really ends up that more energy was taken in per capita 35 years earlier in the U.S. than it is today.The Energy BreakdownThere are a variety of kinds for how energy (and after that electricity) is created.How energy is createdIf you ride a bike at a reasonable rate, you will create 100 watts. Keep this up for 10 hours and you will have created 1 kWh worth of energy. A load of laundry done with a washer and a clothes dryer will consume around 6 kWh of energy.If we overlook the monetary denomination of housing costs and just look at the U.S. economy as the output and consumption of energy, we now consume less per capita than we did in 1987. As we saw in USD rates, this particular home is eight times as expensive, while energy usage per capita is flat. By this reasoning, if it took you one month of riding your bike for 10 hours a day to create the energy to buy your house in 1987, you would now require to ride your bike for eight months to purchase the very same house. 8 times as much energy for the exact same product? Better get out that Peloton subscription.This is a cherry-picked example of one home in a growing city; it has probably been renovated lot of times and deserves the extra work, particularly thinking about Charlottes population and job growth.Lets zoom out and look at another example.The Texas A&M Real Estate Center releases aggregated rural land rates. From their chart, we can see that an acre of land in Texas in 1987 was $553. That exact same land in 2021 is now almost $4,000/ acre (an eightfold increase over a 35-year period).(Source)An acre of land, without any improvements, in the middle of no place, now needs 8 times as much energy output to acquire?! Land can enhance in value with higher population, energy (farming or hunting) or lower tax rates and/or some kind of subsidized incentive. However a 362% rate boost after changing for U.S. population development? Texas forever, but something does not build up here.Is Energy The Correct Metric?The concept of energy-based money is absolutely nothing brand-new. Henry Ford was an early supporter of energy as currency, and as many Bitcoiners and Redditors have mentioned, he was also a follower in reincarnation (H.F. anybody?). The idea of a money denominated in energy terms, kWh for example, held terrific guarantee for getting us out of the fiat system.We intuitively acknowledge the idea of energy. We either work longer hours or we focus efforts or utilize much better tools to utilize our output, and the abstractions merely go on. The business world is complete of internal rate of return analysis, resource staffing, budget plans and timelines. Earnings reports and monetary declarations offer the scorecard to the market, which weeds out companies that do not create financial worth over time.Our system of commercialism has actually worked rather well. Thanks to the unbelievable ingenuity, output and work of everyone in the world, and despite inflation, a lot of things now have lower prices.In 1956, the ENIAC computer weighed 27 loads, taken in 150 kW, ran about 100,000 operations per second and cost the equivalent of $6 million today. Today, a new Macbook weighs 3.5 lbs, takes in around 40 watts, and cranks out 3.2 billion operations per second– all for $2,000. Airliners have actually increased their fuel efficiency at a compound rate of 1.3% between 1968 and 2014. In a lot of cases, we are getting much more efficient with all of our energy usage, so things should be getting even more inexpensive?Whats The Problem?To have the ability to have an abundant life therefore numerous enhancements while using the same energy per capita is an advantage to us all, however how that financial worth is determined is vulnerable to changing rules.If we have gotten more effective with our energy and have much better technology, how is it that a piece of rural land costs 8 times more? This is where the Federal Reserves broadening cash supply enters play. For all of the discuss “temporal inflation,” the Fed (with the aid of banks) has actually handled to broaden the M2 cash supply by around 680% over the past 35 years.So while our small GDP is up 427%, it hasnt surpassed cash supply development, and we have currently seen that energy consumption per capita is flat over 35 years.The issue here is what we all can tangibly feel: The output of our work denominated by the energy we put in deserves substantially less over time.When we as corporations or individuals are unable to maintain the efforts of our energy output, we should continually discover ways to preserve our buying power through properties like land, products and equities. We have issues if the rate at which kept energy degrades is much faster than innovation and output. Physical limits enter play: We can print all the money worldwide, but we cant phony energy production and consumption.Yes, our energy may be consumed more efficiently– as evidenced earlier by the plane needing 45% less fuel for the same trip– hence offering more worth to society. If our society has been so efficient, why has debt to GDP increased from 47% in 1987 to 123% today? How is it that we require to obtain against the future so much in an environment of increased performance? At some time this all breaks.What Breaks?Unlike with fiat or any proof-of-stake altcoins, you can not fake energy development. Doing more operate in the past does not amazingly produce brand-new work in the future. The cover-up in fiat money printing, integrated with every U.S. federal government administrations tendency to invest, has actually left us in debt.(Source)Supposedly this is fine, due to the fact that we can always print our escape of debt. However can we really?In 2021, the federal government brought in $4.05 trillion in earnings with GDP at $22.4 trillion. It spent $6.82 trillion. The pandemic payments made up $570 billion on top of other category staples such as social security ($1.1 trillion), health ($797 billion) and defense ($755 billion). Interest paid by the federal government was $352 billion– 5% of total spending (in a pandemic year). Over time, the government has actually invested more as a percent of GDP– 32% in 1987 compared to 55% at the height of the pandemic– and now to 34% in 2022. Even after recording the value concealed in inflation all these years!In attempts to quell record inflation (9.1% in the most recent report), the Fed treked rate of interest to 2.5% in July; a boost of 75 basis points (.75%). While this may “slow” the economy, it has two negative results on being able to stabilize the budget. With a slower economy, they have a lower tax revenue to draw from. The most recent 0.75% rate of interest increase likewise adds another approximately $130 billion in interest expense to a spending plan that currently cant be balanced. This can be found in the type of included cost on debt rollover, and this fantastic short article from Allan Sloan strolls through an approximated calculation.Using his rollover financial obligation overalls of about $7.1 trillion, every 100 basis point increase in the federal funds rate that feeds through to market yields on Treasuries includes another $70 billion to necessary government spending. If rates ever get up to a 5% variety, that puts interest expense (on just current debt) at somewhere near to $500 billion. More than transport, education, training, employment and social services combined.The Fed can also continue their attempts for quantitative tightening, however this has the very same problem: greater interest rates (and interest expense), and a probably decreased tax base given financial slowdown.The last staying choice would be to cut federal spending or increase taxes. With names like the “Inflation Reduction Act,” we already see the federal government attempting to mask their increased tax efforts. Other “hidden” taxation attempts will likely come: increasing the age at which you can start getting social security benefits, adding extra taxes for “wealthy” people withdrawing from their 401(k) or IRA, putting in carbon taxes under the guise of “ESG” (environmental, social and governance). Things will require to be creative to balance out the competing incentives of a surplus and (re)election.At some point, this design breaks. We can not cut energy production and usage, cut rates of interest to encourage growth and run continued deficits. The numbers dont add up and eventually nobody– governments, people or business– can phony the energy output needed to keep pace. We have actually seen a variety of debt-ceiling face-offs over the previous decade, but this time appears various, particularly with 25% of the world residing in countries with 10%-plus inflation.Whats Next?Money is simply a tool for valuing products and services in time– and has essential homes. It does not develop “yield” by itself. Only productive properties, which provide positive economic value, can do this. When it all breaks down, whoever holds the efficient possessions can determine the function of cash, provided they have the resources and implies to impose and safeguard the rules.But, as all of you are aware, we lastly have an alternative choice. Instead of it coming from top-down enforcement, backed by the military, Bitcoin is embraced bottom-up– in the really order that its properties become useful to the business and individuals offering economic value.All we want as millennials is a method to protect our work, energy and buying power. And have a good avocado toast while we ride our pelotons.How Bitcoin adoption plays out will be amazing and interesting to see. Bitcoin is currently used worldwide, with a $410 billion market cap, settling some $60 trillion in value. Now, with the Lightning Network, Bitcoin can be sent peer-to-peer instantaneously, without a main authority. July saw the highest month-to-month Lightning Network capacity, and every metric is up and to the right for supplying a payment layer that uses ongoing energy and helps clear the cash hurdle present in the Bitcoin system.Defining success metrics relies on an entire host of factors, and at Exponential Layers you can have a look at preliminary Lightning Network metrics that provide insight into network growth (among other data), as Lightning moves to take the role of Visas $10.4 trillion annual payment volume.This is a visitor post by Andy LeRoy. Viewpoints expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Of this energy usage, electrical power usage was around 11,500 kWh per capita.Compare that to today– the newest figures in 2022 for the United States show per capita energy consumption of 76,632 kWh, with a minor increase in the amount consumed as electricity at 12,466 kWh per person.For all of the talk of “walking uphill both ways” in previous generations, it in fact turns out that more energy was consumed per capita 35 years earlier in the U.S. than it is today.The Energy BreakdownThere are a number of kinds for how energy (and then electricity) is created.How energy is createdIf you ride a bike at an affordable pace, you will create 100 watts. The concept of a cash denominated in energy terms, kWh for example, held terrific promise for getting us out of the fiat system.We intuitively recognize the idea of energy. In many cases, we are getting much more effective with all of our energy intake, so things should be getting even more inexpensive?Whats The Problem?To be able to have an abundant life and so lots of improvements while using the same energy per capita is an advantage to us all, however how that economic value is measured is susceptible to altering rules.If we have gotten more efficient with our energy and have much better technology, how is it that a piece of rural land costs eight times more? For all of the talk about “temporal inflation,” the Fed (with the help of banks) has actually handled to expand the M2 cash supply by around 680% over the previous 35 years.So while our nominal GDP is up 427%, it hasnt surpassed money supply development, and we have actually already seen that energy consumption per capita is flat over 35 years.The problem here is what we all can tangibly feel: The output of our work denominated by the energy we put in is worth significantly less over time.When we as corporations or individuals are not able to protect the efforts of our energy output, we need to continuously discover methods to maintain our purchasing power through possessions like land, commodities and equities. Physical limitations come into play: We can print all the cash in the world, but we cant phony energy production and consumption.Yes, our energy might be taken in more effectively– as evidenced earlier by the aircraft requiring 45% less fuel for the very same trip– thus supplying more worth to society.