4 ms·
> If I were a woman, there is no way I would entertain the idea of having kids without my name on the title or lease of the house. There's lots of prosperous
by gspr 4y ago
> If I were a woman, there is no way I would entertain the idea of having kids without my name on the title or lease of the house.
There's lots of prosperous countries where renting is very common, is well-regulated, and not some great risk (Germany and Switzerland spring to mind).
I, too, live in a country where owning is the norm. That turns the rental market into (mostly) shabby flats for the very lowest income brackets, for students, for migrant workers, or for short-term renting. It doesn't have to be that way.
- ChuckNorris89 4y agoSorry, but no. The well regulated rental market in Germany has had the consequence of a housing unit shortage. Try renting anything in well regulated Berlin. It's like trying to find an PS5/ RTX 3080 during the scalpocalipse. Similar in well regulated Stockholm. Renting is very popular in Germany because buying is out of reach for most due to how expensive it is, therefore those who aren't well off have no other choice but to rent, leading to old age poverty for those who don't own their own property by the time they retire. That's why Italian pensioners are statistically better off than their German counterparts despite their country being poorer, because they own their own property at retirement, instead of paying market rent and having to search the city trash bins for empty bottles to make ends meet. Most Germans with financial means or inheritance do own property since it's financially better than renting, especially when your old and living on a measly pension. Not that I don't support rental regulations, I do, but the real estate market in Germany is broken and therefore is not what I consider a model to be followed by everyone.
- iSnow 4y agoBerlin as a yardstick is very problematic. The western part used to be an economic backwater and for a long time after reunification, the city hardly attracted people to live there. It's only in the last 15y that Berlin has been growing like crazy. In general, capital cities in Europe are extremely expensive, no matter whether we are talking about well-regulated Berlin or less-regulated Rome.
- ChuckNorris89 4y agoNot exactly all capital cities. Renting (and buying) in Bucharest is very cheap for tech workers, while renting in Berlin and Rome and expensive even for tech workers. And the issue with Berlin isn't that renting is expensive, it's that you can't find anything decent at all. Properties disappear off websites within minutes due to over demand, and then, once you finally manage find something, you have to do a visit with 200 other people with a folder in hand with a lot of your private information, and pray to your lucky star that you'll be that one in 200 people to get it.
- hef19898 4y agoCompare Berlin to Munich. That salaries in Berlin, and Munich for that matter, didn't increase at the same rate as rents is a more serious problem. That and that historically a lot of people in Munich lived in rented apartments. And those long-term residents, especially older people, are now priced out.
- gspr 4y agoSorry, I definitely did not mean regulated in the sense of "rent control". I meant regulated in the sense of "guaranteeing certain rights for the tenants". I'm aware of the massive housing squeeze in big German cities, and you make a great point — I just wanted to underscore that it's not at heart a rent v buy issue.
- ChuckNorris89 4y agoAgreed. Fair point.
- nisegami 4y agoMaybe we just shouldn't be living that long?
- ChuckNorris89 4y agoSure, even my GP said people are living way beyond their sell by date, putting huge pressure on the healthcare and social system, but what do you suggest we do? Take pensioners behind the block and pop a cap in their heads like cattle? Back in the days, we used to have a once in a century virus/pandemic/plague that would "thin the heard", but now we got really good at creating effective vaccines and prioritizing distributing them at those old and vulnerable, to prevent nature from running its course, so we're back to square one. So what do we do? Provide modern medicine only to able bodied adults and deprive the elderly once they reach their sell by date?
- bombcar 4y agoWe even HAD this "once in a century pandemic" and we fought hard to prevent it culling the herd.
- nisegami 4y ago>Take pensioners behind the block and pop a cap in their heads like cattle? For what it's worth, it'd get the job done. But that aside, for starters, we should have let covid-19 run its course. Vaccines, if any, should have been given to the people under 50 first. This would have helped balance things out a lot to begin with. Similarly, I think we should be more willing to turn to palliative care earlier in the case of declining health in the elderly. Of course, I recognize that I'm basically just describing some flavor or utilitarianism and that it will never even be in the discussion of how things should be.
- gspr 4y agoI can understand that argument for prioritizing younger people when there's a shortage of vaccines. What I cannot fathom is your reasoning for doing so. Sure, if there's 1 vaccine and 5 people who need it, the sad fact is that some will go without. You seem to view that as a positive thing, though. Terrible attitude towards human life!