4 ms·

Your comment is a massive strawman of the article. The core problem is that once you have a majority of the population owning an asset, they're incentivized to

Your comment is a massive strawman of the article. The core problem is that once you have a majority of the population owning an asset, they're incentivized to pull the ladder up behind them, and make it difficult for the non-landed to also buy the asset, to make the value of their asset go up. > Owning your own home is, in my view, the first step towards financial freedom. Sure, for those lucky enough to be able to buy a home before it gets too expensive. What about those not lucky enough to do so? Do they not deserve financial freedom?

bena 5y ago
Uh, if I buy a property, yeah, I kind of want to make it difficult for someone else to buy it. Seeing as I seek to own it long enough to live on it. There is nothing about the previous "landed" status of my neighbors that will affect the value of my property. Not to mention, if you're seeking to reside, not speculate, the "value" of the property is kinda immaterial.
- dionidium 5y ago
  Uh, if I buy a property, yeah, I kind of want to make it difficult for someone else to buy it. Seeing as I seek to own it long enough to live on it. You can make the property you own hard to buy or easy to buy; that's obviously up to you. The problem is that landowners pass laws that make it difficult for prospective owners to buy any property or for current owners to build new units on the land they already own. This is fundamentally illegitimate, but unfortunately it's very popular.
  - bena 5y ago
    I was being cheeky because the way he framed it, it seemed like he was saying that making it difficult for someone to take your property is a bad thing.
- neilparikh 5y ago
  > There is nothing about the previous "landed" status of my neighbors that will affect the value of my property. Suppose everyone who wanted to had the ability to own land in New York (obviously not possible geometrically, but for sake of argument). Do you think that property in New York would still be worth the same? Land only has a buying price/rent because there is an unmet demand. This is a principle economists realized centuries ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent > Not to mention, if you're seeking to reside, not speculate, the "value" of the property is kinda immaterial. The modern property ownership system basically forces homeowners to be speculators. If you have to pay hundreds of thousands (or even millions!) to buy a home, are you really going to be okay if it takes a massive hit (or doesn't go up in value as much as expected)?
  - bena 5y ago
    The problem is that it's not logistically possible. The very thing you want us to ignore for the sake of argument is the crux of the issue. New York is a port. Ports become cities, because access to the rest of the area is kind of needed to access the rest of the area. Ports are valuable. > If you have to pay hundreds of thousands (or even millions!) to buy a home, are you really going to be okay if it takes a massive hit (or doesn't go up in value as much as expected)? Unrealized losses aren't real losses. It's one of the things that confuses me about cars as well. I buy a car, I drive it for as long as possible. I'm not looking to resell it. Same with property. As long as when I sell it, I'm not losing money to sell it, I'm good. Because I'm not selling to make money, I'm selling to divest myself of the obligation of ownership for some reason. And it's important to note that I said that I'm not losing money to sell it. If I owe on it, I want to sell it for enough to cover that and any closing costs on my end. Other than that, I don't really care. I'm not a real estate investor.
    - neilparikh 5y ago
      > New York is a port. Ports become cities, because access to the rest of the area is kind of needed to access the rest of the area. Ports are valuable. Sorry, I'm completely lost as to your point here. My point is simply that land is valuable because it is scarce, and its value is the difference in productivity between the given land and the best free land. From that, it follows that if land values are high, there's a massive difference in productivity between high value land and the best free land. > Other than that, I don't really care. I'm not a real estate investor. It's great that you don't but your view isn't the majority view. Homeownership is considered as a way to build wealth for the middle class, and this view is pervasive. This is pretty much said all the time, everywhere ("homeownership wealth", "intergenerational wealth", "buying a home is a good investment" etc.), by both politicians and the finance industry, so I'm surprised you don't think this is the case. I'll give a concrete example though. A member of Parliament responsible for housing policy (Adam Vaughan) was asked if a 10% drop in house prices (after a year of ~30% rises) would be acceptable, and his answer was no, because "We know that Canadians rely on home ownership to secure their place in the economy now, but also as they retire". I doubt his view his uncommon either. He's simply stating what homeowners (who are the majority) think.

bena 5y ago

Uh, if I buy a property, yeah, I kind of want to make it difficult for someone else to buy it. Seeing as I seek to own it long enough to live on it. There is nothing about the previous "landed" status of my neighbors that will affect the value of my property. Not to mention, if you're seeking to reside, not speculate, the "value" of the property is kinda immaterial.

dionidium 5y ago
Uh, if I buy a property, yeah, I kind of want to make it difficult for someone else to buy it. Seeing as I seek to own it long enough to live on it. You can make the property you own hard to buy or easy to buy; that's obviously up to you. The problem is that landowners pass laws that make it difficult for prospective owners to buy any property or for current owners to build new units on the land they already own. This is fundamentally illegitimate, but unfortunately it's very popular.
- bena 5y ago
  I was being cheeky because the way he framed it, it seemed like he was saying that making it difficult for someone to take your property is a bad thing.
neilparikh 5y ago
> There is nothing about the previous "landed" status of my neighbors that will affect the value of my property. Suppose everyone who wanted to had the ability to own land in New York (obviously not possible geometrically, but for sake of argument). Do you think that property in New York would still be worth the same? Land only has a buying price/rent because there is an unmet demand. This is a principle economists realized centuries ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent > Not to mention, if you're seeking to reside, not speculate, the "value" of the property is kinda immaterial. The modern property ownership system basically forces homeowners to be speculators. If you have to pay hundreds of thousands (or even millions!) to buy a home, are you really going to be okay if it takes a massive hit (or doesn't go up in value as much as expected)?
- bena 5y ago
  The problem is that it's not logistically possible. The very thing you want us to ignore for the sake of argument is the crux of the issue. New York is a port. Ports become cities, because access to the rest of the area is kind of needed to access the rest of the area. Ports are valuable. > If you have to pay hundreds of thousands (or even millions!) to buy a home, are you really going to be okay if it takes a massive hit (or doesn't go up in value as much as expected)? Unrealized losses aren't real losses. It's one of the things that confuses me about cars as well. I buy a car, I drive it for as long as possible. I'm not looking to resell it. Same with property. As long as when I sell it, I'm not losing money to sell it, I'm good. Because I'm not selling to make money, I'm selling to divest myself of the obligation of ownership for some reason. And it's important to note that I said that I'm not losing money to sell it. If I owe on it, I want to sell it for enough to cover that and any closing costs on my end. Other than that, I don't really care. I'm not a real estate investor.
  - neilparikh 5y ago
    > New York is a port. Ports become cities, because access to the rest of the area is kind of needed to access the rest of the area. Ports are valuable. Sorry, I'm completely lost as to your point here. My point is simply that land is valuable because it is scarce, and its value is the difference in productivity between the given land and the best free land. From that, it follows that if land values are high, there's a massive difference in productivity between high value land and the best free land. > Other than that, I don't really care. I'm not a real estate investor. It's great that you don't but your view isn't the majority view. Homeownership is considered as a way to build wealth for the middle class, and this view is pervasive. This is pretty much said all the time, everywhere ("homeownership wealth", "intergenerational wealth", "buying a home is a good investment" etc.), by both politicians and the finance industry, so I'm surprised you don't think this is the case. I'll give a concrete example though. A member of Parliament responsible for housing policy (Adam Vaughan) was asked if a 10% drop in house prices (after a year of ~30% rises) would be acceptable, and his answer was no, because "We know that Canadians rely on home ownership to secure their place in the economy now, but also as they retire". I doubt his view his uncommon either. He's simply stating what homeowners (who are the majority) think.