3 ms·

>We are headed for a massive population crash almost everywhere We're not. Many countries predict stable populations at worst for several decades still. Some c

>We are headed for a massive population crash almost everywhere We're not. Many countries predict stable populations at worst for several decades still. Some continue to predict population growths. Politicians are all too eager to use immigration as a way to band-aid low birthrates, and many are already subsidizing children more. Your last line gives it away too. Japan is primarily crashing in the countryside. Tokyo is lagging behind by almost two decades, only just starting to drop. The high housing prices globally are primarily in urban and suburban areas. Many of those areas are still growing tremendously at the expense of rural areas. People don't want to live in rural areas because there are no jobs. Even if there was a crash, it hardly matters if populations continue to rise or remain stable in areas where housing is getting too expensive for the jobs provided.

bamboozled 4y ago
One thing I find interesting though is that at least in Australia, it's speculated that a lot of the property pressure is from foreign investment, especially from China. So if China's population starts to crash or their economy goes bad at some stage what effect will this then have on the Australian market (for example)? I'm guessing not much because the inflationary property price damage has been done. It's a curious thought. Also in the case for "steady populations with little growth", wouldn't this mean that property prices will also stabilize and eventually drop? This stabilized property market will be interesting because people won't be able to make the huge capital gains and returns they were used too? A lot of property investors are also probably pretty heavily indebted and so any type of economic trouble might put many in a precarious position.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  Too many variables to say. In theory, you would say a stable population all other things equal would keep the housing prices equal (or drop a little initially since predictions aren't green anymore). In practice, even without foreign money, there are still many ways with which the value of housing can go up. And as long as the majority of voters want housing to go up, it likely will. Practice can be seen by the many cultural shifts we had which had zero to do with population growth / housing shortages, but still increased prices tremendously. Higher loans, longer mortgages and lower interest rates, for one. Increased dual incomes is another.
  - bamboozled 4y ago
    However, unless there is another population boom on the horizon (which really seems unlikely at present). Property speculators must have their doubts. This combined with climate change and it's ability to change the landscape (literally) makes it getting harder to predict where people might actually want to live. For example, I visited Scottsdale, Arizona not long ago which is going through it's own mini-boom at the moment. Will that be a nice place to live in ten years with rising temps? One would have to ask the question? Would people still pay huge money to live in Tahoe with poor snow quality and lots of bush fires in summer? You did say there's too many variables :)
alfor 4y ago
What I saw is fewer kids in almost all countries. The urbanisation push this even further as adult living in dense cities have even fewer kids. Yes, it will take some time, but the aging of population is already there. And old people consume very little. I agree that the speculative nature of housing is a problem, from what I see it is caused mainly by the devaluation of currencies. You by a house at 100k$ with 90k$ of mortgage, your government print money making your mortgage worth less, bam you got a 200k$ house with 90k$ mortgage. Your 10k$ gave you 110k$ While your currency is worth half of its previous value. It was the easiest way to get rich for a long time, it work as long as the currency keep debasing (you can count on that) and the housing market is good.

bamboozled 4y ago

One thing I find interesting though is that at least in Australia, it's speculated that a lot of the property pressure is from foreign investment, especially from China. So if China's population starts to crash or their economy goes bad at some stage what effect will this then have on the Australian market (for example)? I'm guessing not much because the inflationary property price damage has been done. It's a curious thought. Also in the case for "steady populations with little growth", wouldn't this mean that property prices will also stabilize and eventually drop? This stabilized property market will be interesting because people won't be able to make the huge capital gains and returns they were used too? A lot of property investors are also probably pretty heavily indebted and so any type of economic trouble might put many in a precarious position.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Too many variables to say. In theory, you would say a stable population all other things equal would keep the housing prices equal (or drop a little initially since predictions aren't green anymore). In practice, even without foreign money, there are still many ways with which the value of housing can go up. And as long as the majority of voters want housing to go up, it likely will. Practice can be seen by the many cultural shifts we had which had zero to do with population growth / housing shortages, but still increased prices tremendously. Higher loans, longer mortgages and lower interest rates, for one. Increased dual incomes is another.
- bamboozled 4y ago
  However, unless there is another population boom on the horizon (which really seems unlikely at present). Property speculators must have their doubts. This combined with climate change and it's ability to change the landscape (literally) makes it getting harder to predict where people might actually want to live. For example, I visited Scottsdale, Arizona not long ago which is going through it's own mini-boom at the moment. Will that be a nice place to live in ten years with rising temps? One would have to ask the question? Would people still pay huge money to live in Tahoe with poor snow quality and lots of bush fires in summer? You did say there's too many variables :)

alfor 4y ago

What I saw is fewer kids in almost all countries. The urbanisation push this even further as adult living in dense cities have even fewer kids. Yes, it will take some time, but the aging of population is already there. And old people consume very little. I agree that the speculative nature of housing is a problem, from what I see it is caused mainly by the devaluation of currencies. You by a house at 100k$ with 90k$ of mortgage, your government print money making your mortgage worth less, bam you got a 200k$ house with 90k$ mortgage. Your 10k$ gave you 110k$ While your currency is worth half of its previous value. It was the easiest way to get rich for a long time, it work as long as the currency keep debasing (you can count on that) and the housing market is good.