4 ms·

We basically have two main way of living in apartments. Rent-controlled first-hand contracts, and bought apartments. Rent-controlled apartments can be sublet l

We basically have two main way of living in apartments. Rent-controlled first-hand contracts, and bought apartments. Rent-controlled apartments can be sublet legally with almost no markup. Bought apartments can be sublet legally to a market rate [0]. I'm guessing that the guy in the article is in a sublet owned apartment. Regardless, sub-letting of rent-controlled apartments is very strictly controlled and is essentially "banned". But of course it's quite tricky/expensive to enforce. (My, in Sweden very unpopular, opinion is that subletting is the last thing that gives young people some kind of chance to mobility. Especially those whose's parents can't buy them an apartment. If all forms of subletting were banned, I would have had no chance to live in Stockholm).

oolang 5y ago
I don't think that is an unpopular opinion. On the contrary it's been the going one for quite a while. Deregulating letting was said to be part the solution when it was introduced. Now it is said to be part of the problem to have even more deregulation. A more unpopular opinion is that we actually shouldn't try to improve the situation. The reality is that Stockholm geographically challenged. The major pieces of available land is the city airport and areas of parkland. The city airport has been given a lease until 2040. The areas of parkland is a national park. The housing market is one the most important markets in Sweden. Anything that significantly lowers the value of real estate will be political suicide. Meaning that in the current market there can't be any solution that actually delivers affordable housing. There is also little will from the voters to accept measure that would stabilize the market long terms like removing the mortgage interest deduction, introduce an actual real estate tax or regulating lending similar to other countries. All this means that it's very unlikely that there will ever be even a relatively affordable market in Stockholm. Which will end up being disastrous when the cost of rent is also among the biggest single cost in the knowledge economy. For companies you can argue that the increase in housing cost will be offset by the larger available workforce but you can't say the same for public services. Past or future deregulation isn't going to solve this. On the contrary it is what prevents a correction. The natural thing to do when something becomes too expensive is look for alternatives. In the housing market this means moving somewhere else. But as companies can attract those good or privileged enough to Stockholm anyways they don't have to move. So the average person doesn't have much of a choice but to move there themselves. Which in turn makes Stockholm even more attractive. The paradox is that most any improvement of the Stockholm housing market will there make the situation worse long term. So the solution has to be not to cater for this market but to improve the market somewhere else instead. Unfortunately this also unlikely.
- filleokus 5y ago
  I agree with many of your points. Especially that the mortgage market is really messed up. But as you say, it's almost impossible to make changes that negatively influence the (upper) middle class. A pet "dictator for one day" idea of mine is to simply move the capital to something like Linköping! Has an airport, enormous amounts of farm land that can just be built on etc, less than 2 hours away from Stockholm by train. Make Stockholm like NYC and Linköping as DC. If all government headquarters (and related functions) were forced to move, it would certainly take hundreds of thousands of people with them (including family members etc). Brasília but on Östgötaslätten :-).
  - oolang 5y ago
    Many government functions have actually already or are in the process of moving. https://www.fastighetsvarlden.se/notiser/flera-myndigheter-tvingas-ivag-fran-stockholm/ https://www.fastighetsvarlden.se/notiser/flera-myndigheter-t... You wouldn't have to move the government though just companies. This is a major part of creating the problem from the beginning. Because as you probably know many of the industrial companies where distributed to other locations like Linköping, Trollhättan, Karlskrona and so forth. As those companies and the industry general has shifted to no longer need things like manufacturing facilities everyone ends up in Stockholm. It's a paradox that when you can work from anywhere it also means everyone can work from the same place. Of course if a larger company would move outside of Stockholm that places would soon face the same problem even quicker as it's smaller. But if it happened to many different places there might be a shoot. Unfortunately you would have the same issue that many people would have to undermine their immediate interest for it to happen. But at least it would be technically possible. Stockholm has probably gone so far that it is socially and technically impossible as the economic consequences of an effective solution might be unpredictable.
- amelius 5y ago
  > Anything that significantly lowers the value of real estate will be political suicide. What percentage of the population owns the house they live in (or has a mortgage)?

oolang 5y ago

I don't think that is an unpopular opinion. On the contrary it's been the going one for quite a while. Deregulating letting was said to be part the solution when it was introduced. Now it is said to be part of the problem to have even more deregulation. A more unpopular opinion is that we actually shouldn't try to improve the situation. The reality is that Stockholm geographically challenged. The major pieces of available land is the city airport and areas of parkland. The city airport has been given a lease until 2040. The areas of parkland is a national park. The housing market is one the most important markets in Sweden. Anything that significantly lowers the value of real estate will be political suicide. Meaning that in the current market there can't be any solution that actually delivers affordable housing. There is also little will from the voters to accept measure that would stabilize the market long terms like removing the mortgage interest deduction, introduce an actual real estate tax or regulating lending similar to other countries. All this means that it's very unlikely that there will ever be even a relatively affordable market in Stockholm. Which will end up being disastrous when the cost of rent is also among the biggest single cost in the knowledge economy. For companies you can argue that the increase in housing cost will be offset by the larger available workforce but you can't say the same for public services. Past or future deregulation isn't going to solve this. On the contrary it is what prevents a correction. The natural thing to do when something becomes too expensive is look for alternatives. In the housing market this means moving somewhere else. But as companies can attract those good or privileged enough to Stockholm anyways they don't have to move. So the average person doesn't have much of a choice but to move there themselves. Which in turn makes Stockholm even more attractive. The paradox is that most any improvement of the Stockholm housing market will there make the situation worse long term. So the solution has to be not to cater for this market but to improve the market somewhere else instead. Unfortunately this also unlikely.

filleokus 5y ago
I agree with many of your points. Especially that the mortgage market is really messed up. But as you say, it's almost impossible to make changes that negatively influence the (upper) middle class. A pet "dictator for one day" idea of mine is to simply move the capital to something like Linköping! Has an airport, enormous amounts of farm land that can just be built on etc, less than 2 hours away from Stockholm by train. Make Stockholm like NYC and Linköping as DC. If all government headquarters (and related functions) were forced to move, it would certainly take hundreds of thousands of people with them (including family members etc). Brasília but on Östgötaslätten :-).
- oolang 5y ago
  Many government functions have actually already or are in the process of moving. https://www.fastighetsvarlden.se/notiser/flera-myndigheter-tvingas-ivag-fran-stockholm/ https://www.fastighetsvarlden.se/notiser/flera-myndigheter-t... You wouldn't have to move the government though just companies. This is a major part of creating the problem from the beginning. Because as you probably know many of the industrial companies where distributed to other locations like Linköping, Trollhättan, Karlskrona and so forth. As those companies and the industry general has shifted to no longer need things like manufacturing facilities everyone ends up in Stockholm. It's a paradox that when you can work from anywhere it also means everyone can work from the same place. Of course if a larger company would move outside of Stockholm that places would soon face the same problem even quicker as it's smaller. But if it happened to many different places there might be a shoot. Unfortunately you would have the same issue that many people would have to undermine their immediate interest for it to happen. But at least it would be technically possible. Stockholm has probably gone so far that it is socially and technically impossible as the economic consequences of an effective solution might be unpredictable.
amelius 5y ago
> Anything that significantly lowers the value of real estate will be political suicide. What percentage of the population owns the house they live in (or has a mortgage)?