[flagged]
New US homeownership measure puts people first
11–20 of 394 posts
Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first
#12Looking at the statistics that are used to measure growth and performance at a population level are such a great window into how they themselves are opinionated stances. The two measures are both great measures of house ownership that measure different things. The article frames the second one as better, and if you are looking to see the ownership proportion of people (for example as they note to look at the numbers…
> If however you care about the housing development decisions that will incentivise owner occupancy Genuine question: who, precisely, cares about "incentivising owner occupancy" as a policy goal? What interest does that serve and why should the government prioritize maximizing that metric? Basically right now we measure "what fraction of homes are occupied by an owner" and not "what fraction of people live in their o…
The theory behind it is that 1) economic growth generally accrues to land values so distributing land ownership is one way to distribute wealth and 2) people generally treat the things they own better than the things they rent or consume.
Incentivizing ownership is more closely aligned with objective (1) while owner-occupancy is more closely aligned with objective (2).
These don't work in the presence of capital's outsized returns though, which allows people who (for whatever reason) have access to more capital to recursively seize more of the growth in land values from objective (1) and therefore price out objective (2).
Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first
#13TL;DR: Instead of measuring the percentage of homes that are owned by people who live there, they want to measure the percentage of adults who own a home.
Feels like an apples and oranges situation. The two numbers each have their own value but they’re measuring different things.
One is calculated based on the number of houses, the other is a measured based on the population of adults or households. Both measures have always existed. Trying to replace one with the other doesn’t seem right because they both have value for different reasons.
Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first
#14Looking at the statistics that are used to measure growth and performance at a population level are such a great window into how they themselves are opinionated stances. The two measures are both great measures of house ownership that measure different things. The article frames the second one as better, and if you are looking to see the ownership proportion of people (for example as they note to look at the numbers…
> If however you care about the housing development decisions that will incentivise owner occupancy Genuine question: who, precisely, cares about "incentivising owner occupancy" as a policy goal? What interest does that serve and why should the government prioritize maximizing that metric? Basically right now we measure "what fraction of homes are occupied by an owner" and not "what fraction of people live in their o…
[deleted]
Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's really interesting is the extreme hypocrites like Nigerians that will show up and buy US property but then outlawing you from doing the same thing in their country because they don't want Americans or others doing the thing they did.
US-migrated Nigerians are driving Nigeria's local home ownership policy? Why? How? It seems more likely what you're seeing is the kindred spirit between parochialists of all colors. And if only they could see through the "colors" part they'd realize they're not so different after all.
President Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Adekunle Tinubu was literally a US-migrated Nigerian, studying here for college and then working. Maybe you are not familiar with Nigeria, but a surprisingly large amount of those with legislative power have lived or held property in the US. You don't even have to "migrate" to buy property here, just show up, and you can leave (or do it remotely).
Tinubu arrived in the United States in 1975, where he commenced undergraduate studies first at Richard J. Daley College in Chicago and then at Chicago State University where he majored in accounting and management. He worked odd jobs as a dishwasher, night security guard and cab driver to support himself through college.[13] He made the honor dean's list as an undergraduate and taught remedial class tutorials, some of his classmates credited his lectures for their improved grades. Tinubu was the university accounting society president in his senior year. His cumulative GPA was 3.54.[13] Tinubu graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration in 1979.[14][15]
Early career
After graduating, Tinubu worked as an accountant for the American companies Arthur Andersen, Deloitte and GTE Services Corporation.[16][17]Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first
#16Looking at the statistics that are used to measure growth and performance at a population level are such a great window into how they themselves are opinionated stances. The two measures are both great measures of house ownership that measure different things. The article frames the second one as better, and if you are looking to see the ownership proportion of people (for example as they note to look at the numbers…
> If however you care about the housing development decisions that will incentivise owner occupancy Genuine question: who, precisely, cares about "incentivising owner occupancy" as a policy goal? What interest does that serve and why should the government prioritize maximizing that metric? Basically right now we measure "what fraction of homes are occupied by an owner" and not "what fraction of people live in their o…
You might want to maximize owner occupancy because you care about the poor homes who don't have local owners - as an owner living in the home might be better incentivized to take care of it and provide decent living conditions, for example.
Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first
#17[flagged]
Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
US-migrated Nigerians are driving Nigeria's local home ownership policy? Why? How? It seems more likely what you're seeing is the kindred spirit between parochialists of all colors. And if only they could see through the "colors" part they'd realize they're not so different after all.
President Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Adekunle Tinubu was literally a US-migrated Nigerian, studying here for college and then working. Maybe you are not familiar with Nigeria, but a surprisingly large amount of those with legislative power have lived or held property in the US. You don't even have to "migrate" to buy property here, just show up, and you can leave (or do it remotely). Tinubu arrived in the United States in 19…
> a surprisingly large amount of those with legislative power have lived or held property in the US
Is this an evangelical thing? Or is something else going on?
Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
President Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Adekunle Tinubu was literally a US-migrated Nigerian, studying here for college and then working. Maybe you are not familiar with Nigeria, but a surprisingly large amount of those with legislative power have lived or held property in the US. You don't even have to "migrate" to buy property here, just show up, and you can leave (or do it remotely). Tinubu arrived in the United States in 19…
> a surprisingly large amount of those with legislative power have lived or held property in the US Is this an evangelical thing? Or is something else going on?
It's a thing in all of Africa. Even a bunch of the crazy Liberian warlord guys were US educated. Maybe less so today but anybody with money in Africa used to migrate to the US to study and then come back with the prestige of the credentials.
Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first
#20Looking at the statistics that are used to measure growth and performance at a population level are such a great window into how they themselves are opinionated stances. The two measures are both great measures of house ownership that measure different things. The article frames the second one as better, and if you are looking to see the ownership proportion of people (for example as they note to look at the numbers…
> If however you care about the housing development decisions that will incentivise owner occupancy Genuine question: who, precisely, cares about "incentivising owner occupancy" as a policy goal? What interest does that serve and why should the government prioritize maximizing that metric? Basically right now we measure "what fraction of homes are occupied by an owner" and not "what fraction of people live in their o…
More importantly, nobody cares about the people where renting is their ideal condition (at least for now - in different situations different ways of living are ideal). There should be nothing wrong with renting. Owning your own should be a worse choice if you will live there for less than 5-10 years. Owning a home should be only slightly better if you will live there for more than 10 years - not enough better to make up the hassles of owning.
If you rent make sure you vote. Make sure you have an informed vote, all too often cities will put rules on rental units that make renting worse for you. (bad tenants and bad landlords exist - good tenants and good landlords need protection from the former). Likewise while rent obeys supply and demand, when property taxes go up that factors into supply and will make rent go up indirectly - is it worth it? (I cannot answer the later question - the more important consideration is make sure the taxes are similar for rental and owned units otherwise you are a renter are harmed)