Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 497 posts

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#111

Post by harperlee »

Traster wrote: post #48

I 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…

> the middle class who used to be able to live in a nice semi/detatched house are now living in flats in a skyscraper that is a massive detriment to their quality of life

Higher density has pros and cons. Living in higher density areas can increase quality of life significantly, if you can walk to work, groceries, pharmacy, restaurants, friends, etc. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/07/paris-mayor-un... for example.

Obviously the extremes (1 bedroom skyscraper flats and living 1h away from civilization) won't work for most, but there is a spectrum where people will choose different things depending on their individual preferences.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#112

Post by inglor_cz »

sufehmi wrote: post #91
bovine3dom wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, that's not so far from what schools do.

Yup, COVID-19 shows me something that I have suspected all along - a LOT of parents are not comfortable to be with their OWN children. Because schools are closed, parents have to be with their children all the time A lot of them are really, really stressed out because of this. Which begs the question - why the fuck did you bother to have kids then? Children are blessings from heaven. If they can not see it that way,…

Well the COVID situation was pretty unique in that people were confined at home. This easily translates into a prison-like mentality (or submarine-like, another very stressful environment).

Prior to the helicopter parenting era, kids would spend whole days playing outside unless the weather was bad. This gave everyone some breathing space, kids and parents alike.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#113

Post by maratc »

lucian1900 wrote: post #58
fergie wrote: post #34

> a generation of young people who cannot easily afford to rent or buy and think capitalism has let them down Thats not some irrational misconception- capitalism has indeed let these people down. Capitalism, a set of social policies that prioritises the needs of capital over the needs of people, is literally a system that is designed to concentrate ownership. Under capitalism the best way to make money is to own, or…

I expected your last two paragraphs to argue for abolishing capitalism, after such a robust critique of its fundamental contradiction. Why not publicly owned and democratically controlled housing, like socialist countries have? I grew up in a flat where my parents paid less for rent to the state than for utilities.

> like socialist countries have?

What socialist countries have it? Are there any?

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#114

Post by Ekaros »

docflabby wrote: post #26

Owner 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…

Owner occupation also has negative effects on economies. It limits mobility of labour. For example in many places you can't sell your property or it is exceedingly hard. Thus you are stuck with it. On other hand with renting mobility is simpler.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#116

Post by helsinkiandrew »

Traster wrote: post #48

I 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…

I don't think home ownership is the problem (apart from the NYMBYsm that sometimes happens) - owning ones home can give a sense of freedom and happyness to many.

But the quest of that goal can be a problem - mortgages (to expensive, to big), the choice of owning a property rather than living in a better property (size, quality, location) can be a blight on peoples lives.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#117

Post by toyg »

verbify wrote: post #85
brobdingnagians wrote: post #80

Even 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.

Let’s be honest, there is a substantial bipartisan agreement on this... possibly because most MPs of all colours are homeowners.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#118

Post by gmtx725 »

imtringued wrote: post #54
stepbeek wrote: post #7

I 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…

Speculation isn't the problem. Speculation is like a time machine for prices. Speculators use information to discover the true price of an asset and keep buying until the difference between the market price and the "true price" shrinks to 0. In other words, they are making the market more efficient for buyers and sellers. Buyers benefit when the asset would be overpriced because of volatility. Sellers benefit when th…

What even is a "true price", ontologically speaking?

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#119

Post by Ekaros »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #37

What 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?

Finland has right-of-occupation scheme. Where one pays that circa 15% and gains permanent right to occupy usually a flat. The rent is slightly lower compared to free market and can not exceed that. And there is also calculated inflation correction on this. So if they move out they get the payment back with interest. Then next occupant has to pay that new price.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#120

Post by yodelshady »

differentView wrote: post #18
tgv wrote: post #5

The title is clickbait, I presume. I can't read the full article either, but in the introduction it already says that the problem is that not enough houses have been built. And in my opinion, that plus regulation failure are at the root of the problem. Who actually owns the houses is of lesser importance.

Don't some homeowners object to increased supply because they believe it hinders appreciation of their homes?

Yes. But if a development that makes the local quality of life worse, then - surprise! - that will also deflate asset prices.

How much value does the Economist put on me starting my tech job on three hour's sleep, because of the following, all of which I've had happen nearby (as in a literal stone's throw) between 1 am and 5 am in the last year:

Redirection of arterial road traffic !

Fire alarms that nobody else shows an inclination to reset !

Dog fighting ring !

violent robbery !

I'd rank this as somewhere in the middle of flats I've rented.

Words struggle to express how much I hate neoliberal suburbanites wanking on about the values of high-density housing. Yes, there is potential. But by f*k, try living it for a bit.

Post reply on HN