4 ms·
Evidence to support this? I have never found this to be true - heavily owner-occupied towns tend to be sleepy suburbs whereas the economic powerhouses of city c
by silverstrike 8y ago
Evidence to support this? I have never found this to be true - heavily owner-occupied towns tend to be sleepy suburbs whereas the economic powerhouses of city centers are almost always very renter-heavy.
- ModernMech 8y agoCities are renter heavy because housing is more expensive.
- ghaff 8y agoAnd because, especially these days, (at least some) cities disproportionately attract single people who mostly rent and then buy a house in the suburbs when they start a family.
- joe_fishfish 8y agoIMO you have this backwards. It's much easier to get a mortgage to buy property in sleepy suburbs, so people can and do buy houses there to live in them, then have to commute to work. It's almost impossible for most people working in soulful / desirable / economic powerhouse locations to get a mortgage on a property there, so you see lots of wealthy investors take up the properties there and rent-seek to make themselves even richer. That's before we even mention the children factor.
- coredog64 8y agoRent-seeking as an economic term doesn’t just mean that someone buys property with the intention of renting it out. It also has the requirement that the “rent seeker” then employs a social or political power structure to force users/customers into renting with no benefit. I’m not thrilled about renting, but neither do I want to gamble on purchasing housing in an expensive market when I may have to leave my job or even the state. My landlord is taking that risk with her capital and therefore deserves to be rewarded for it.