7 ms·

Perhaps there's something deeply wrong with western housing systems? I don't want to sound too radical, but this seems to be inextricably connected to capitali

Perhaps there's something deeply wrong with western housing systems? I don't want to sound too radical, but this seems to be inextricably connected to capitalism. We won't ever solve it without structural changes. What Amsterdam is doing is a decent start at least.

hatchnyc 5y ago
It's old vs young, new vs established. For most homeowners, their home is their most valuable asset. It's just not possible to simultaneously maintain high property values and have affordable housing. Given this, any "solution" to housing affordability is "solving" a problem that a sizable and highly influential segment of the population doesn't want solved. On the contrary, you see real government action whenever home prices fall.
- dorchadas 5y ago
  And that's what I think OP was alluding to about it being "inextricably connected to capitalism". As long as we treat housing like an asset, we'll have this problem. And I don't see how there's any other way to treat housing under a capitalist system.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    The problem isn't a result of treating housing as an asset, it's a structural regulatory problem. Housing is treated as an asset in Tokyo, but they don't have the same regulatory constraints on zoning, so they don't have outrageous housing prices.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    You mean an asset with a guaranteed return at the expense of late arrivals who must buy the asset from you. The vast majority of rent seeking is based around coercion. When people advocate for free markets nature seeps through. After all, coercion is completely natural. We don't have heaven on earth so why would a free market lead to the ultimate manifestation of heaven? Get rid of the coercion and you get rid of the problems.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  That's a good point. By some measures it isn't just the wealthy keeping the poor vulnerable; it's everyone who isn't poor. In this case, middle class voters. In the US, our shortsightedness has begun threatening the lower-middle class. People with some cash in the bank are facing homelessness, due to a historic lack of housing. The housing shortage came following dozens of contributors including NIMBY, AirBnB, single-use zoning, tunnel-vision'd pols/voters, corp house buyers, etc. Pointing to a single factor delays solutions.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    It's not really multiple factors. There was only one. Restrictive zoning. That constrained supply. Everything else is just the various parties fighting over the now-insufficient housing supply.
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      Single use zoning lives due to NIMBY and voter/pol tunnel vision. The former stays forever while the latter is in play.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        It's not just "NIMBY and voter/pol tunnel vision." Corporations that own houses don't want their value to decline. People renting properties out on AirBNB don't want their value to decline. They're just different categories of existing property owners who want property values to stay high or increase more. The mechanism they all use for that is restrictive zoning. To win that you have to defeat them all. That's why it's hard to do. Having failed to actually solve the problem, some people have had the idea to foist it onto someone else. Restrict who you can rent to, so people can't buy a property and use it for vacation rentals, on the theory that it will shift supply to long-term rentals. Then that makes the problem worse for short-term rentals, creating an incentive for regulatory arbitrage by AirBNB. Then long-term renters condemn AirBNB for thwarting their attempt to shift costs onto people who can't vote in the jurisdiction with the zoning problem. All of that is bike shedding and friendly fire. The only real solution is to increase the housing supply.
jupp0r 5y ago
The discussion here is centered around very desirable centralized locations. Out in the countryside things look very different. You can buy surprisingly cheap houses 2h outside of Berlin. Nobody does.
- dundarious 5y ago
  You also need an income to live.
  - iso1631 5y ago
    Buy a house 40 years ago, pay your mortgage like a good workerbee Finish paying mortgage, use the equity to buy a house 20 years ago and rent it out. Rent income > mortgage interest (and capital too) House price increases, use equity to buy a few more houses. Fast forward to today, you have 3 million in equity and 10k/month coming in after costs.
rocqua 5y ago
Houses are assets. Houses were the most commonly owned assets, so governments that increased the price of housing made most of the middle class richer, making those policies popular. Re-formulating the above, making housing expensive is popular policy. Doing that policy long enough causes new entrants into the market to not be able to afford housing. So yes, there is something wrong with our housing system. Part of that is that we marketed 'own your house' as a great way to earn money, and then made good on that promise at the expense of new entrants into the market.
imtringued 5y ago
The US was the land of the free because there wasn't an existing land owner dynasty. Now there is.

hatchnyc 5y ago

It's old vs young, new vs established. For most homeowners, their home is their most valuable asset. It's just not possible to simultaneously maintain high property values and have affordable housing. Given this, any "solution" to housing affordability is "solving" a problem that a sizable and highly influential segment of the population doesn't want solved. On the contrary, you see real government action whenever home prices fall.

dorchadas 5y ago
And that's what I think OP was alluding to about it being "inextricably connected to capitalism". As long as we treat housing like an asset, we'll have this problem. And I don't see how there's any other way to treat housing under a capitalist system.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  The problem isn't a result of treating housing as an asset, it's a structural regulatory problem. Housing is treated as an asset in Tokyo, but they don't have the same regulatory constraints on zoning, so they don't have outrageous housing prices.
- imtringued 5y ago
  You mean an asset with a guaranteed return at the expense of late arrivals who must buy the asset from you. The vast majority of rent seeking is based around coercion. When people advocate for free markets nature seeps through. After all, coercion is completely natural. We don't have heaven on earth so why would a free market lead to the ultimate manifestation of heaven? Get rid of the coercion and you get rid of the problems.
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
That's a good point. By some measures it isn't just the wealthy keeping the poor vulnerable; it's everyone who isn't poor. In this case, middle class voters. In the US, our shortsightedness has begun threatening the lower-middle class. People with some cash in the bank are facing homelessness, due to a historic lack of housing. The housing shortage came following dozens of contributors including NIMBY, AirBnB, single-use zoning, tunnel-vision'd pols/voters, corp house buyers, etc. Pointing to a single factor delays solutions.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  It's not really multiple factors. There was only one. Restrictive zoning. That constrained supply. Everything else is just the various parties fighting over the now-insufficient housing supply.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    Single use zoning lives due to NIMBY and voter/pol tunnel vision. The former stays forever while the latter is in play.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      It's not just "NIMBY and voter/pol tunnel vision." Corporations that own houses don't want their value to decline. People renting properties out on AirBNB don't want their value to decline. They're just different categories of existing property owners who want property values to stay high or increase more. The mechanism they all use for that is restrictive zoning. To win that you have to defeat them all. That's why it's hard to do. Having failed to actually solve the problem, some people have had the idea to foist it onto someone else. Restrict who you can rent to, so people can't buy a property and use it for vacation rentals, on the theory that it will shift supply to long-term rentals. Then that makes the problem worse for short-term rentals, creating an incentive for regulatory arbitrage by AirBNB. Then long-term renters condemn AirBNB for thwarting their attempt to shift costs onto people who can't vote in the jurisdiction with the zoning problem. All of that is bike shedding and friendly fire. The only real solution is to increase the housing supply.

jupp0r 5y ago

The discussion here is centered around very desirable centralized locations. Out in the countryside things look very different. You can buy surprisingly cheap houses 2h outside of Berlin. Nobody does.

dundarious 5y ago
You also need an income to live.
- iso1631 5y ago
  Buy a house 40 years ago, pay your mortgage like a good workerbee Finish paying mortgage, use the equity to buy a house 20 years ago and rent it out. Rent income > mortgage interest (and capital too) House price increases, use equity to buy a few more houses. Fast forward to today, you have 3 million in equity and 10k/month coming in after costs.

rocqua 5y ago

Houses are assets. Houses were the most commonly owned assets, so governments that increased the price of housing made most of the middle class richer, making those policies popular. Re-formulating the above, making housing expensive is popular policy. Doing that policy long enough causes new entrants into the market to not be able to afford housing. So yes, there is something wrong with our housing system. Part of that is that we marketed 'own your house' as a great way to earn money, and then made good on that promise at the expense of new entrants into the market.

imtringued 5y ago

The US was the land of the free because there wasn't an existing land owner dynasty. Now there is.