4 ms·

I lack your optimism; when they pass on, their houses will be transferred to small- and big-time rental companies, who will rent their houses to young people fo

I lack your optimism; when they pass on, their houses will be transferred to small- and big-time rental companies, who will rent their houses to young people for more than a mortgage would cost. The only hope, in my opinion, is a giant, propaganda-driven cultural movement away from money and towards societal stability.

skissane 5y ago
In Australia, the tax system favours private individual ownership of residential properties over corporate ownership. Property developers are allowed to keep ownership of new developments (so-called "build-to-rent"), or sell the new development (on a single title) to an investment trust. But corporations buying pre-existing house stock, without plans to redevelop it, are at a tax disadvantage compared to individual owners. I don't think corporations are quite as powerful as you think. Certainly not in Australia. At the end of the day, individuals vote, corporations can't. Governments win elections by appealing to voters, not appealing to corporations. Indeed, almost all of the negative aspects of Australia's housing policies have come about through appealing to individual voters–the older generations who own a lot of property, the "aspirational middle class" who want to own a lot of property too, the "Mum & Dad investors", the professional class (property investment is popular with doctors and lawyers and I believe even software engineers), the small business owner class, etc–rather than being driven by corporate interests.
structural 5y ago
What's also interesting is that transportation & communication are very much easier than they were for past generations. This is also combined with shorter times that a worker stays at a single job before moving on for another opportunity. Put all this together and nobody wants to stay in a single house for 10+ years, or even in the same city for that length of time: at this point, buying a house would be counterproductive -- even if you could afford it -- because the transaction costs eat you alive. For these reasons, a lot of us younger generation folks actually value a high-quality rental property more than buying exactly that same house. [Yes, sure, you buy the house and you'll eventually pay it off, but you'd be surprised how many people don't believe they will be able to afford to retire at all, much less accumulate any wealth whatsoever.]
- skissane 5y ago
  > Put all this together and nobody wants to stay in a single house for 10+ years, or even in the same city for that length of time It can change when (and if) you have kids. Uprooting our kids to move somewhere else is going to be a burden on them. I experienced that burden as a child, I don’t want to visit it on my own children unless it is (in other ways) a really compelling proposition. Especially as parent of a child with a neurodevelopmental disorder, who I know would find the disruption harder than the average child would

skissane 5y ago

In Australia, the tax system favours private individual ownership of residential properties over corporate ownership. Property developers are allowed to keep ownership of new developments (so-called "build-to-rent"), or sell the new development (on a single title) to an investment trust. But corporations buying pre-existing house stock, without plans to redevelop it, are at a tax disadvantage compared to individual owners. I don't think corporations are quite as powerful as you think. Certainly not in Australia. At the end of the day, individuals vote, corporations can't. Governments win elections by appealing to voters, not appealing to corporations. Indeed, almost all of the negative aspects of Australia's housing policies have come about through appealing to individual voters–the older generations who own a lot of property, the "aspirational middle class" who want to own a lot of property too, the "Mum & Dad investors", the professional class (property investment is popular with doctors and lawyers and I believe even software engineers), the small business owner class, etc–rather than being driven by corporate interests.

structural 5y ago

What's also interesting is that transportation & communication are very much easier than they were for past generations. This is also combined with shorter times that a worker stays at a single job before moving on for another opportunity. Put all this together and nobody wants to stay in a single house for 10+ years, or even in the same city for that length of time: at this point, buying a house would be counterproductive -- even if you could afford it -- because the transaction costs eat you alive. For these reasons, a lot of us younger generation folks actually value a high-quality rental property more than buying exactly that same house. [Yes, sure, you buy the house and you'll eventually pay it off, but you'd be surprised how many people don't believe they will be able to afford to retire at all, much less accumulate any wealth whatsoever.]

skissane 5y ago
> Put all this together and nobody wants to stay in a single house for 10+ years, or even in the same city for that length of time It can change when (and if) you have kids. Uprooting our kids to move somewhere else is going to be a burden on them. I experienced that burden as a child, I don’t want to visit it on my own children unless it is (in other ways) a really compelling proposition. Especially as parent of a child with a neurodevelopmental disorder, who I know would find the disruption harder than the average child would