6 ms·

These two maps, taken in conjunction, do not provide a good argument for housing deregulation. Even if we accept that the maps correlate quite well (and ignore

by Jolter 4y ago

These two maps, taken in conjunction, do not provide a good argument for housing deregulation. Even if we accept that the maps correlate quite well (and ignore whether there is any causal link), there is an assumption that the author is not stating plainly: that housing deregulation leads to young people being able to move out of their parent’s basement. Look at the Scandinavian, very deep green countries at the top of the map. They all have strictly regulated construction processes, with political involvement in city planning. It takes many long years of project planning before you can put a spade in the ground in Stockholm. What’s more, there is government meddling in rent setting - they are not free markets. Still, they seem to do OK? I don’t know what the author has against housing regulations but this argument is missing some part.

dybber 4y ago
Exactly living with your parents has more to do about culture and local customs.
- dorchadas 4y ago
  This might be highly dependent on where you're at. I know many in Dublin who still live with their parents because there's nowhere available (everything's gone to short-term lets) at anything reasonably resembling a decent price.
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    The people get what the people want. Those are the joys of democracy. Rising house prices and the young emigrating.
scythe 4y ago
Using the regulatory environment as a proxy for housing prices is a very noisy signal. Of the Scandinavian countries, three are relatively flat; the other, Norway, has the third highest median income at PPP in the world (after UAE/.ch) thanks to its oil reserves. All have very low population densities by European standards. These factors should improve housing affordability in any regulatory environment.
iSnow 4y ago
>I don’t know what the author has against housing regulations but this argument is missing some part. The missing part is that the Scandinavian countries are high income-countries and have a lower population density, e.g.: - Sweden: 25.4 inhabitants per km2 - Italy: 206 per Km2 (Both according to Google).
- Jolter 4y ago
  Yes, those two data points are trivially true. I’d perhaps argue that Italy is also a high-income country, but I’m not sure if it matters. My point is that the author is trying to make an argument for deregulation of the housing market. Yet he is failing to actually state his argument. How exactly do these two maps support an argument for deregulation? And how do your two data points support it?
2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
Renting an apartment in Stockholm requires being on a waiting list for years, or paying private landlords under the table in order to be allowed to rent. I hear it's not as bad in Gothenburg and Malmö, though. Buying is still possible, but the prices are extremely inflated due to the Swedish habit of simply not paying of their mortages and just pay the interest. Last time I heard, the Stockholm housing bubble is about to burst due to the increasing interest rates, potentially collapsing the Swedish housing market. The Finnish housing market is cooler, but finding an apartment in the Helsinki or Turku areas is not easy, and they don't come cheap. Just like in the case of Stockholm, people with below-average income are more or less kept out of the city cores. From what I've been told, it sounds like the situation in Denmark and Norway is similar.
- Jolter 4y ago
  These things are also true. It is very very hard to find a rental flat in Stockholm. Slightly easier in Gothenburg, and easier still, the smaller and less attractive the town you choose. Some claim this shortage is due to over-regulation of the housing market, others claim that it's due to other causes. Usually, this is split down ideological lines, where the left is for keeping the regulated rents, and the right are for introducing "market based rents". But this is all irrelevant, because despite this well-documented housing shortage in Stockholm, and despite having a rent-controlled market and a huge presumed housing bubble, for some reason Sweden ranks as having only 4.1% basement dwellers (see OP). So, explain again how this article on "Basement Fertility" is making a case for housing market deregulation?
  - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
    The Nordic countries have massive housing projects from the 50's-70's and as you mention, it's relatively easy to get a non-attractive apartment -- or even a house. It's an urban issue, and assuming ones's ready to move somewhere else then moving out is not a problem. That's what happens in many cases.

by Jolter 4y ago

dybber 4y ago

Exactly living with your parents has more to do about culture and local customs.

dorchadas 4y ago
This might be highly dependent on where you're at. I know many in Dublin who still live with their parents because there's nowhere available (everything's gone to short-term lets) at anything reasonably resembling a decent price.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  The people get what the people want. Those are the joys of democracy. Rising house prices and the young emigrating.

scythe 4y ago

Using the regulatory environment as a proxy for housing prices is a very noisy signal. Of the Scandinavian countries, three are relatively flat; the other, Norway, has the third highest median income at PPP in the world (after UAE/.ch) thanks to its oil reserves. All have very low population densities by European standards. These factors should improve housing affordability in any regulatory environment.

iSnow 4y ago

>I don’t know what the author has against housing regulations but this argument is missing some part. The missing part is that the Scandinavian countries are high income-countries and have a lower population density, e.g.: - Sweden: 25.4 inhabitants per km2 - Italy: 206 per Km2 (Both according to Google).

Jolter 4y ago
Yes, those two data points are trivially true. I’d perhaps argue that Italy is also a high-income country, but I’m not sure if it matters. My point is that the author is trying to make an argument for deregulation of the housing market. Yet he is failing to actually state his argument. How exactly do these two maps support an argument for deregulation? And how do your two data points support it?

2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago

Renting an apartment in Stockholm requires being on a waiting list for years, or paying private landlords under the table in order to be allowed to rent. I hear it's not as bad in Gothenburg and Malmö, though. Buying is still possible, but the prices are extremely inflated due to the Swedish habit of simply not paying of their mortages and just pay the interest. Last time I heard, the Stockholm housing bubble is about to burst due to the increasing interest rates, potentially collapsing the Swedish housing market. The Finnish housing market is cooler, but finding an apartment in the Helsinki or Turku areas is not easy, and they don't come cheap. Just like in the case of Stockholm, people with below-average income are more or less kept out of the city cores. From what I've been told, it sounds like the situation in Denmark and Norway is similar.

Jolter 4y ago
These things are also true. It is very very hard to find a rental flat in Stockholm. Slightly easier in Gothenburg, and easier still, the smaller and less attractive the town you choose. Some claim this shortage is due to over-regulation of the housing market, others claim that it's due to other causes. Usually, this is split down ideological lines, where the left is for keeping the regulated rents, and the right are for introducing "market based rents". But this is all irrelevant, because despite this well-documented housing shortage in Stockholm, and despite having a rent-controlled market and a huge presumed housing bubble, for some reason Sweden ranks as having only 4.1% basement dwellers (see OP). So, explain again how this article on "Basement Fertility" is making a case for housing market deregulation?
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
  The Nordic countries have massive housing projects from the 50's-70's and as you mention, it's relatively easy to get a non-attractive apartment -- or even a house. It's an urban issue, and assuming ones's ready to move somewhere else then moving out is not a problem. That's what happens in many cases.