6 ms·

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

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't sound like great policy to me, especially at a time where asset prices are inflating like mad. What's the actual alternative to people owning their own homes. Would we be better off all holding shares in housing companies? I also take issue with this idea that we should all be living in skyscrapers. If you go off and build skyscrapers. Maybe some people want to live in skyscrapers but if the result of this policy is that 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. It's like the problem we have with Houses of Multiple Occupancy in the UK. It's a fine concept to break up a 4 bed house into 3 flats and sell each individually but you need to understand you're making it economically unviable for anyone to ever afford a 4 bed house anymore in that area. There are serious issues with housing, and the massive disincentive for people to downsize is definitely one of them, but a lot of these policy solutions are just trash.

radicalbyte 6y ago
It would make so much more sense to just implement a progressive wealth tax combined with tax rules which make owning more than one home very expensive. I would also be interested to see what would happen if the rental and sales markets were forced to only supply houses which matched the current building codes - it would make building much more competitive.
- em-bee 6y ago
  now that would be interesting. if an old flat or house became unrentable or unsellable once the current occupant moves out because it doesn't match current requirements, then landlords would be begging renters to stay. on the other hand, individual home owners would be stuck unable to sell their property, because it would drop in value. (even if they could sell it, not everyone would want to buy it). i am not sure if that's good or bad. in any case everyone would be forced to keep their buildings up to standard.
  - effie 6y ago
    > individual home owners would be stuck unable to sell their property, because it would drop in value. (even if they could sell it, not everyone would want to buy it). i am not sure if that's good or bad. It's good because it would motivate owners to own only as few houses as possible (to minimize work on updates), and many more people could own a home then.
    - mustyoshi 6y ago
      It would cause prices to go up because in order to sell it has to he up to code, meaning renovations. It would likely cause consolidation of ownership, something like 70% of all apartments in my area are owned by the same company. And since they have consistent rules... It can be hard for certain people (those with criminal records) to find affordable housing.
- kwhitefoot 6y ago
  > only supply houses which matched the current building codes That would either destroy vast numbers of perfectly usable and often interesting or historic buildings or require the creation of a system for giving exemptions in order to preserve them. And of course this gives an opportunity for corruption and cronyism.
- nemo44x 6y ago
  We sort of have that. Your primary residence gets tax advantages generally and your other properties don’t.
tpm 6y ago
"If people didn't own houses then someone would, and that someone is still incentivized to constrain the supply." that does not follow - if that someone does not want to sell them or make profit on the rent, why would he constrain the supply? "What's the actual alternative to people owning their own homes." The state, the city, not-for-profit entities owning them, for example. "I also take issue with this idea that we should all be living in skyscrapers." I agree with that and also think it's much better to live in about 5-story high buildings; the quality of life and price is much better with those.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > if that someone does not want to sell them or make profit on the rent, why would he constrain the supply? Why wouldn't that someone want to make a profit? > The state, the city, not-for-profit entities owning them, for example. That'd just make each individual eternally indebted to the state, at the whims of bureaucrats and vulnerable to political punishments while the costs wouldn't come down by much, because the state generally sucks at doing these things.
  - tpm 6y ago
    > Why wouldn't that someone want to make a profit? Because they are not a for-profit company or institution? Public housing is often owned or managed by such entities. Also there can be other incentives besides direct profit; a city can build flats to encourage people to move and live there. The city will profit from the economic activity this will bring. In that case the city has a motive to have a larger, not a smaller, supply of flats. > That'd just make each individual eternally indebted to the state, at the whims of bureaucrats and vulnerable to political punishments while the costs wouldn't come down by much, because the state generally sucks at doing these things. The state may generally suck at doing these things, but nevertheless this is the way it works in some places and works good in some of them. In a different thread I mention Vienna where around 220'000 flats are owned by the city and another 220'000 are indirectly influenced by them which together housing about 25% of the population. The city started this program at the beginning of the 20th century when 300'000 people didn't have a place to live - it's obviously much better now. So maybe it's not a completely broken way of doing things?
nly 6y ago
Old Victorian houses in London have been broken up in to 6-8 flats or more since the 80s. The original properties are just too large for single owner occupiers. Of course the resulting 2 bed flats are still on the market for $1M USD.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  The original properties are just too expensive for single owner occupiers
bovine3dom 6y ago
> 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 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 People in Singapore really love their flats. I think what people don't realise is that the space between the skyscrapers is well used with lots of playgrounds, parks and sports facilities. It isn't giving up your garden: it's swapping it for a much larger shared garden with facilities you could never dream of affording on your own. HMOs aren't a fair comparison because they have comical soundproofing compared to modern flats.
- brobdingnagians 6y ago
  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.
  - bovine3dom 6y ago
    There are detached homes in Singapore - their price and taxes just reflect the fact that about a hundred people would normally be living on the same ground, and those people have to be compensated. I think a fairer comparison in terms of relationships is like polygamy: forbidding people to live above or below you is a bit like taking away extra potential spouses. I believe polygamy is illegal in most societies due to the inequalities it causes.
CalRobert 6y ago
Conversely, people who used to be able to live in a flat are now unable to live in the area at all because we've outlawed building flats. Similarly, regarding: "unviable for anyone to ever afford a 4 bed house" - it's not like areas that ban conversions to flats have cheap 4 bed houses. They have expensive 4 bed houses, often filled with 4-8 roommates who likely would prefer their own flat.
Ekaros 6y ago
Harsh reality is that once a city reaches certain size option for semi/detached housing becomes unrealistic to house majority of population. Just numbers game.
- macinjosh 6y ago
  100%! We need to find incentives for people to move to small towns. Small town life can be absolutely wonderful and can still take place close enough to population areas.
  - CalRobert 6y ago
    We already have an enormous incentive - incredibly cheap housing. Mine was under 100k. But I am far, far more expensive for the public purse than when I lived in the city.
harperlee 6y ago
> 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-unveils-15-minute-city-plan-in-re-election-campaign 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.
- kwhitefoot 6y ago
  I can walk to all those things even though I live in a 130 m2 house with an 800 m2 garden full of mature fruit trees. There are four supermarkets within 2 km, the doctor and chemist are 1 km away. In many countries it isn't necessary to sacrifice living space for convenience. It is largely a political choice for the country as a whole even though it is an economic one for most of the individuals. Even in densely populated countries like the UK the population is very unevenly distributed resulting in huge conurbations. Countries like the US have no reason at all any more to have people live in dense cities unless they really want to, after all there is a lot of empty space there and good physical and electronic communication. US mean density 36/km2, UK 275/km2, Norway 15/km2.
  - harperlee 6y ago
    I never posited a false dichotomy, I just said there’s a spectrum of conveniency and that it is related to density. The more density the more things closer, by definition, though; and the bigger the demand for real estate, so people end up with less space due to physics and pricing.
  - sershe 6y ago
    1km or especially 2km is not in any way a reasonable walk. It is just barely reasonable for a healthy adult in good weather, and still tedious. I personally find that mid-density is the worst of both worlds, and not just in this regard... I used to live in downtown Vancouver BC and it was great to have everything I use within 200m, now I live in the kind of area you describe (semi-urban detached houses) and I almost always drive, just as if I lived in the woods. In fact, after COVID I wish I had originally moved to the woods!
helsinkiandrew 6y ago
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.
teachingassist 6y ago
> If people didn't own houses then someone would, and that someone is still incentivized to constrain the supply. This seems theoretically nice but is not in practice the case. Homeowners are immediately present, voting locally, political NIMBYs. Homeowners who are ostensibly in favour of increasing the housing supply, still don't like it when it affects their own area (and know how to effectively campaign against it locally). Landlords just don't care that much (in this instance) - an increasing local population heralds local economic growth and a potentially increased value of their property portfolio.
galfarragem 6y ago
The elephant in room is Airbnb et al. not home ownership. It started as way to rent a spare room - fair enough - and if it had stayed like this, its impact would be bearable. But like it evolved - full residential quartiers acting as large hotels - made the housing market unsustainable for the inhabitants not participating in this game.
ganafagol 6y ago
What's astonishing is how drastically different cities in different countries look like. Take Paris or Berlin with their 5-8 floor buildings as far as the eye can see. That's a moderate density for a modern city, leaves space for green spaces, infrastructure and is so dense that everybody can sort-of affort it while not so dense that everybody is just anonomous. You can still know all neighbors in your building by name. (That there is a problem with exploding rents is a separate issue.) As contrast, take the average north american city with a million residents. most either live in a detached house or in a 30+ floor skyscraper. Of course the detached houses rather close to a city center won't have much space around them, so you hav 1.5 bushes and then there is the fence and next house. The lots are worth millions and out of reach for most unless the go super deep into debt and have a lot of luck. Or you live in an anonymous skyscraper silo. There is an alternative to all this, but all that's happening is that excuses are ruminated back and forth.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
KptMarchewa 6y ago
> 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 Having to own a car, maintain lawns/garden or pay someone for it, and having to commute for hour one side instead of 15 minute walk would be an extreme detriment to my quality of life.
- kwhitefoot 6y ago
  It's good that you have the choice to rent and I and the other commenter have the choice to buy.
dionidium 6y ago
"If you go off and build skyscrapers. Maybe some people want to live in skyscrapers but if the result of this policy is that 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." What this fails to acknowledge is that the demand for density doesn't change when you outlaw it. All you've done is taken away people's choices, mandated your own preferences, and still in the end all the same demand for more housing goes on existing just the same, anyway, so prices continue to rise. It may be true that all things being equal most people prefer detached single-family housing, but all things aren't equal! And so we have to acknowledge the tradeoffs and take the demand for more density seriously. (The fact that in order to get detached single-family housing in high-demand areas you have to make the alternatives illegal is I think pretty strong evidence for this.)

radicalbyte 6y ago

It would make so much more sense to just implement a progressive wealth tax combined with tax rules which make owning more than one home very expensive. I would also be interested to see what would happen if the rental and sales markets were forced to only supply houses which matched the current building codes - it would make building much more competitive.

em-bee 6y ago
now that would be interesting. if an old flat or house became unrentable or unsellable once the current occupant moves out because it doesn't match current requirements, then landlords would be begging renters to stay. on the other hand, individual home owners would be stuck unable to sell their property, because it would drop in value. (even if they could sell it, not everyone would want to buy it). i am not sure if that's good or bad. in any case everyone would be forced to keep their buildings up to standard.
- effie 6y ago
  > individual home owners would be stuck unable to sell their property, because it would drop in value. (even if they could sell it, not everyone would want to buy it). i am not sure if that's good or bad. It's good because it would motivate owners to own only as few houses as possible (to minimize work on updates), and many more people could own a home then.
  - mustyoshi 6y ago
    It would cause prices to go up because in order to sell it has to he up to code, meaning renovations. It would likely cause consolidation of ownership, something like 70% of all apartments in my area are owned by the same company. And since they have consistent rules... It can be hard for certain people (those with criminal records) to find affordable housing.
kwhitefoot 6y ago
> only supply houses which matched the current building codes That would either destroy vast numbers of perfectly usable and often interesting or historic buildings or require the creation of a system for giving exemptions in order to preserve them. And of course this gives an opportunity for corruption and cronyism.
nemo44x 6y ago
We sort of have that. Your primary residence gets tax advantages generally and your other properties don’t.

tpm 6y ago

"If people didn't own houses then someone would, and that someone is still incentivized to constrain the supply." that does not follow - if that someone does not want to sell them or make profit on the rent, why would he constrain the supply? "What's the actual alternative to people owning their own homes." The state, the city, not-for-profit entities owning them, for example. "I also take issue with this idea that we should all be living in skyscrapers." I agree with that and also think it's much better to live in about 5-story high buildings; the quality of life and price is much better with those.

luckylion 6y ago
> if that someone does not want to sell them or make profit on the rent, why would he constrain the supply? Why wouldn't that someone want to make a profit? > The state, the city, not-for-profit entities owning them, for example. That'd just make each individual eternally indebted to the state, at the whims of bureaucrats and vulnerable to political punishments while the costs wouldn't come down by much, because the state generally sucks at doing these things.
- tpm 6y ago
  > Why wouldn't that someone want to make a profit? Because they are not a for-profit company or institution? Public housing is often owned or managed by such entities. Also there can be other incentives besides direct profit; a city can build flats to encourage people to move and live there. The city will profit from the economic activity this will bring. In that case the city has a motive to have a larger, not a smaller, supply of flats. > That'd just make each individual eternally indebted to the state, at the whims of bureaucrats and vulnerable to political punishments while the costs wouldn't come down by much, because the state generally sucks at doing these things. The state may generally suck at doing these things, but nevertheless this is the way it works in some places and works good in some of them. In a different thread I mention Vienna where around 220'000 flats are owned by the city and another 220'000 are indirectly influenced by them which together housing about 25% of the population. The city started this program at the beginning of the 20th century when 300'000 people didn't have a place to live - it's obviously much better now. So maybe it's not a completely broken way of doing things?

nly 6y ago

Old Victorian houses in London have been broken up in to 6-8 flats or more since the 80s. The original properties are just too large for single owner occupiers. Of course the resulting 2 bed flats are still on the market for $1M USD.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
The original properties are just too expensive for single owner occupiers

bovine3dom 6y ago

> 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 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 People in Singapore really love their flats. I think what people don't realise is that the space between the skyscrapers is well used with lots of playgrounds, parks and sports facilities. It isn't giving up your garden: it's swapping it for a much larger shared garden with facilities you could never dream of affording on your own. HMOs aren't a fair comparison because they have comical soundproofing compared to modern flats.

brobdingnagians 6y ago
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.
- bovine3dom 6y ago
  There are detached homes in Singapore - their price and taxes just reflect the fact that about a hundred people would normally be living on the same ground, and those people have to be compensated. I think a fairer comparison in terms of relationships is like polygamy: forbidding people to live above or below you is a bit like taking away extra potential spouses. I believe polygamy is illegal in most societies due to the inequalities it causes.

CalRobert 6y ago

Conversely, people who used to be able to live in a flat are now unable to live in the area at all because we've outlawed building flats. Similarly, regarding: "unviable for anyone to ever afford a 4 bed house" - it's not like areas that ban conversions to flats have cheap 4 bed houses. They have expensive 4 bed houses, often filled with 4-8 roommates who likely would prefer their own flat.

Ekaros 6y ago

Harsh reality is that once a city reaches certain size option for semi/detached housing becomes unrealistic to house majority of population. Just numbers game.

macinjosh 6y ago
100%! We need to find incentives for people to move to small towns. Small town life can be absolutely wonderful and can still take place close enough to population areas.
- CalRobert 6y ago
  We already have an enormous incentive - incredibly cheap housing. Mine was under 100k. But I am far, far more expensive for the public purse than when I lived in the city.

harperlee 6y ago

> 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-unveils-15-minute-city-plan-in-re-election-campaign 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.

kwhitefoot 6y ago
I can walk to all those things even though I live in a 130 m2 house with an 800 m2 garden full of mature fruit trees. There are four supermarkets within 2 km, the doctor and chemist are 1 km away. In many countries it isn't necessary to sacrifice living space for convenience. It is largely a political choice for the country as a whole even though it is an economic one for most of the individuals. Even in densely populated countries like the UK the population is very unevenly distributed resulting in huge conurbations. Countries like the US have no reason at all any more to have people live in dense cities unless they really want to, after all there is a lot of empty space there and good physical and electronic communication. US mean density 36/km2, UK 275/km2, Norway 15/km2.
- harperlee 6y ago
  I never posited a false dichotomy, I just said there’s a spectrum of conveniency and that it is related to density. The more density the more things closer, by definition, though; and the bigger the demand for real estate, so people end up with less space due to physics and pricing.
- sershe 6y ago
  1km or especially 2km is not in any way a reasonable walk. It is just barely reasonable for a healthy adult in good weather, and still tedious. I personally find that mid-density is the worst of both worlds, and not just in this regard... I used to live in downtown Vancouver BC and it was great to have everything I use within 200m, now I live in the kind of area you describe (semi-urban detached houses) and I almost always drive, just as if I lived in the woods. In fact, after COVID I wish I had originally moved to the woods!

helsinkiandrew 6y ago

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.

teachingassist 6y ago

> If people didn't own houses then someone would, and that someone is still incentivized to constrain the supply. This seems theoretically nice but is not in practice the case. Homeowners are immediately present, voting locally, political NIMBYs. Homeowners who are ostensibly in favour of increasing the housing supply, still don't like it when it affects their own area (and know how to effectively campaign against it locally). Landlords just don't care that much (in this instance) - an increasing local population heralds local economic growth and a potentially increased value of their property portfolio.

galfarragem 6y ago

The elephant in room is Airbnb et al. not home ownership. It started as way to rent a spare room - fair enough - and if it had stayed like this, its impact would be bearable. But like it evolved - full residential quartiers acting as large hotels - made the housing market unsustainable for the inhabitants not participating in this game.

ganafagol 6y ago

What's astonishing is how drastically different cities in different countries look like. Take Paris or Berlin with their 5-8 floor buildings as far as the eye can see. That's a moderate density for a modern city, leaves space for green spaces, infrastructure and is so dense that everybody can sort-of affort it while not so dense that everybody is just anonomous. You can still know all neighbors in your building by name. (That there is a problem with exploding rents is a separate issue.) As contrast, take the average north american city with a million residents. most either live in a detached house or in a 30+ floor skyscraper. Of course the detached houses rather close to a city center won't have much space around them, so you hav 1.5 bushes and then there is the fence and next house. The lots are worth millions and out of reach for most unless the go super deep into debt and have a lot of luck. Or you live in an anonymous skyscraper silo. There is an alternative to all this, but all that's happening is that excuses are ruminated back and forth.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

KptMarchewa 6y ago

> 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 Having to own a car, maintain lawns/garden or pay someone for it, and having to commute for hour one side instead of 15 minute walk would be an extreme detriment to my quality of life.

kwhitefoot 6y ago
It's good that you have the choice to rent and I and the other commenter have the choice to buy.

dionidium 6y ago

"If you go off and build skyscrapers. Maybe some people want to live in skyscrapers but if the result of this policy is that 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." What this fails to acknowledge is that the demand for density doesn't change when you outlaw it. All you've done is taken away people's choices, mandated your own preferences, and still in the end all the same demand for more housing goes on existing just the same, anyway, so prices continue to rise. It may be true that all things being equal most people prefer detached single-family housing, but all things aren't equal! And so we have to acknowledge the tradeoffs and take the demand for more density seriously. (The fact that in order to get detached single-family housing in high-demand areas you have to make the alternatives illegal is I think pretty strong evidence for this.)