>Those who own homes often become NIMBYs who resist development in an effort to protect their investments.
I don't get it. Isn't this a good thing? People protect theirs and pay far less attention to commons and rented properties.
Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
81–90 of 497 posts
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#82Next up, living in families shown to be inefficient, newborns should be matched in a skills based auction at birth. => There is more to life than supply and demand, and home ownership has a hidden effect on societal responsibility, wellbeing and a life milestone
Actually who you are born to is probably the number 1 driver of inequality. If you really wanted something more equitable, you would probably require that no children be raised by their parents and be turned over to a state run children's home at birth.
In practice, that's not so far from what schools do.
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#83Owner occupation of property vs rent seeking ownership are 2 very different paradigms. The former results in community, and investment and a large number of beneficial economic effects. The later is simply an economic parasite Only have to look to the past to see what happened with farming. Substance farming and feudaliam was inefficient and disincentified investment.(why improve land you don't own and someone else r…
I rented out my small apartment for 6 years when I had no use for it (living elsewhere), and I never felt like an economic parasite.
It is a service that comes with plenty of duties and risks, at least if you want to have a reasonable reputation.
It probably depends on local market. I can imagine that in Silicon Valley, bad landlords can get away with almost anything, because the demand is so strong. Outside such economic hubs, the market situation is much more balanced and getting a good tenant who won't smoke in the house and destroy furniture is not trivial.
A friend of mine rented out a small apartment inherited from his grandma (nothing expensive, a rust-belt city in Eastern Europe that just keeps itself alive) and found out that the tenants turned it into a meth factory, when police came knocking on his door to ask unpleasant questions.
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seen from another angle, homeownership (once the mortgage has been paid) grants freedom, while a rent-dweller will remain a slave to his landlord forever, with Damocles's sword named "Eviction and homelessness" always dangling over their heads.
I'm a millennial and I plan to rent forever because I value the ability to move out whenever I liked. Even homeowners can't escape that sword of Damocles you describe. IMO as long as you have assets (stocks, cash, etc.) that you can periodically liquidate to cover expenses, the form of those assets doesn't matter.
> as long as you have assets (stocks, cash, etc.) that you can periodically liquidate to cover expenses
"I don't care because I have a trust fund" is not the argument you think it is.
If you're talking about accumulating wealth, I note that (in the UK at least) the gain you can make without incurring tax is somewhat limited but the house that you're living in has unlimited exemption from capital gains tax.
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#85Even from the title, the implication is that "home ownership" is a "policy" from the government rather than just a natural state of people acquiring and improving the land. It implies the government can simply revoke home ownership by a new policy. Property ownership and improvement isn't a privilege "given" to us by a benevolent government with their immaculate "policies" from time immemorial. People are the source…
In the UK there are lots of government policies/incentives by the Conservative Party to encourage people to buy a home. These policies can be revoked.
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#86What if renters could have a way to pay more to gain partial ownership of their property? E.g., could progressively own up to 10%. That woulf allow for more of the feeling of ownership and allow renters to participate in the appreciation. That would mitigate some of the negative impacts of gentrification. Has anyone given this sort of renter-ownership blend a thought?
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#87I don't think this article makes a logical argument at all. It says house ownership is bad because it gives people a vested interest in constraining the supply of housing. That's true but that's not a problem. If people didn't own houses then someone would, and that someone is still incentivized to constrain the supply. I'm also not sure that reducing home ownership is a good idea - "let's make everyone poorer" doesn…
> If people didn't own houses then someone would, and that someone is still incentivized to constrain the supply. Yes, but constraining the supply is done through political means: planning laws, green belts, individual objections to developments, voting etc. All of those in theory are based on "one man one vote", so if you concentrate ownership of supply you drastically reduce the number of votes it gets. > the middl…
Some people in Singapore may love their flats. Some of them might wish they could buy a house. People should be able to choose. People who love flats can live in flats, people who live detached homes can save up and buy or build one.
It is odd that we have simply accepted that the government has the right to tell everyone if they can live in a flat or a house.
I could think that arranged marriages are much better than choosing your relationship; but that doesn't mean I think that it should be a government policy and government should ban your own choice of relationship. You can have an arranged marriage if you want, even in the West. It works for some people, doesn't work for others.
Some people love flats and renting. Some like owning a flat, some like renting a house, some like owning a house, some like living in the woods off grid, and some like backpacking around the world without a house. Choice is great.
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#88> From Sydney to Sydenham, fiddly regulations protect an elite of existing homeowners and prevent developers from building the skyscrapers and flats that the modern economy demands. The resulting high rents and house prices make it hard for workers to move to where the most productive jobs are, and have slowed growth. Following this logic from the ancient Greek times, by now we would have thousand stories skyscrapers…
Rome was the city where upwards growth was only limited by technical issues, and it did indeed expand to a population of 1-2 million (approx) out of a whole Roman Empire population of 60 million.
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rules against density have prevented a lot of demand from being met. It makes big cities where people want to live unattainable for many because of price. It also forces many people into long commutes. This makes them less happy, cause large amounts of pollution, and creates huge traffic jams. By increasing density, biking to work becomes easier. Similarly, public transport becomes a lot more effective. In genera…
As a single data point, I live in one of the most dense european cities and home prices are insane. Probably a mix of speculation, tourism and other policies. While density might play a part it's not a silver bullet. As with everything, the solution is probably custom to each city and region
Perhaps it's not dense enough compared to how economically valuable living there is. Otherwise, why would people live in an overpriced city instead of a cheaper one? Why do you live there? Surely for most residents, it's because of high-paying jobs.
Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake
#90I agreee that speculation on property solely as an asset is an issue, but don't really agree with the premise early in the article around the growth of cities. The argument strikes me as something like this: * An increase in the size of urban areas would increase GDP by 4% * Anything which blocks this growth is bad * Home ownership blocks this increase * Therefore, home ownership is bad The implicit premise is that a…
> I agreee that speculation on property solely as an asset is an issue Speculation helps create a liquid market and stabilize prices.
That's "market making". Speculation tends to increase volatility.