3 ms·
I'd change the perspective. Both you and the GP are right, but all these benefits are used against the consumer, to distract them from other things that are hap
by BlargMcLarg 4y ago
I'd change the perspective. Both you and the GP are right, but all these benefits are used against the consumer, to distract them from other things that are happening. It's a subtle race to the bottom which, when looking at younger generations / lower classes and their incapability to buy, suddenly isn't so subtle anymore.
The entire thing also creates a cycle of "house prices must go up!" which further exacerbates the problem, at the cost of those who haven't been able to buy houses. Or worse, it creates a large amount of debt which is begging for a 2007-2008 repeat.
- Qem 4y agoNow that people have less children, or no children, and the population tends to age-out and shrink in many countries, I wonder if we'll reach a point where real state prices start to consistently fall every year, reversing the current trend, as people die of old age in large numbers leaving lots of empty properties behind.
- BlargMcLarg 4y agoI hope so, but I also heard enough reasons to not expect this. Many countries are still projecting population increases well until 2030 (sometimes even 2050?). The Netherlands predicts population will continue to rise well until 2070, despite fertility rate fluctuating between 1.5 and 1.7 for five decades now. It's pretty similar to Japan, and Japan has only just started decreasing in population. There's also the cautionary tale of "there is enough housing, just not enough affordable housing", as well as VCs convincing governments to tear down homes in favor of other things, further reducing the number of homes. Then again, there's the darker perspective that lack of medical staff / medicine will significantly lower the lifespan of several generations.