4 ms·

Unbelievable, those animals! They made a system that encourages people to actually LIVE in the properties that bought instead of trying to speculate and leech f

Unbelievable, those animals! They made a system that encourages people to actually LIVE in the properties that bought instead of trying to speculate and leech from others. Terrible system. /s

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
Well it works if everybody is rich to begin with, I guess. Otherwise I could imagine few issues with the approach of having to buy a house to be able to live somewhere. It could even be a good filter for immigration - only people who can afford to buy a house could be able to migrate there. And surprise, you end up with a population of fairly successful people.
silverpepsi 5y ago
Speaking of leeches (investors) I've got some terrible news for you There are some bastards out there doing something even worse. Try this, google: "hotel". They won't even let people "live" rather they charge them a steep fee for each 24 hour period spent in this sort of "shelter". It's straight back to the paleolithic era brutality.
maeln 5y ago
It is more complicated than that. Any system as its drawbacks, and the Singaporean system is no different. Presenting just one metric (home-ownership) and showing it as a symbol of success is hiding a lot of complex issues. A similar system would not necessarily work in another place. Typically, being only 728.6 km², relocation is less of an issue in Singapore. This is less true in a lot of nations where having to relocate to another city for work is often a reality. As I pointed out, being able to quickly rent and exit a place is more important in those situation. Therefore, having a supply of renter (companies or individual) is beneficial. In the same idea, because less money is being invested overall in housing, the supply for cheap housing stay very much under a lot of tension. This lead to family sharing the same home for longer (a lot of children staying well past their 20's in their parent home). This is probably one of the important factor explaining a low birth rate. I think the general idea of trying to push (single) home-ownership my making it increasingly harder and costlier to own more than one property is definitely something that should inspire some politician in country where housing as become a speculative bubble. But this should be done really carefully and with consideration of their own specificities. Done too hastily, it could very well cause a housing crisis, and a housing crisis don't mean just loss of money, it means family on the street.

Unbelievable, those animals! They made a system that encourages people to actually LIVE in the properties that bought instead of trying to speculate and leech from others. Terrible system. /s

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

Well it works if everybody is rich to begin with, I guess. Otherwise I could imagine few issues with the approach of having to buy a house to be able to live somewhere. It could even be a good filter for immigration - only people who can afford to buy a house could be able to migrate there. And surprise, you end up with a population of fairly successful people.

silverpepsi 5y ago

Speaking of leeches (investors) I've got some terrible news for you There are some bastards out there doing something even worse. Try this, google: "hotel". They won't even let people "live" rather they charge them a steep fee for each 24 hour period spent in this sort of "shelter". It's straight back to the paleolithic era brutality.

maeln 5y ago

It is more complicated than that. Any system as its drawbacks, and the Singaporean system is no different. Presenting just one metric (home-ownership) and showing it as a symbol of success is hiding a lot of complex issues. A similar system would not necessarily work in another place. Typically, being only 728.6 km², relocation is less of an issue in Singapore. This is less true in a lot of nations where having to relocate to another city for work is often a reality. As I pointed out, being able to quickly rent and exit a place is more important in those situation. Therefore, having a supply of renter (companies or individual) is beneficial. In the same idea, because less money is being invested overall in housing, the supply for cheap housing stay very much under a lot of tension. This lead to family sharing the same home for longer (a lot of children staying well past their 20's in their parent home). This is probably one of the important factor explaining a low birth rate. I think the general idea of trying to push (single) home-ownership my making it increasingly harder and costlier to own more than one property is definitely something that should inspire some politician in country where housing as become a speculative bubble. But this should be done really carefully and with consideration of their own specificities. Done too hastily, it could very well cause a housing crisis, and a housing crisis don't mean just loss of money, it means family on the street.