3 ms·

Looks like about 23% to me. [1] And even then, I'd hardly call it ownership. You still pay tax, you have to do [lawn, sidewalk, building] upkeep, you're still b

Looks like about 23% to me. [1] And even then, I'd hardly call it ownership. You still pay tax, you have to do [lawn, sidewalk, building] upkeep, you're still beholden to the law of the land (e.g. no laying chickens in your yard), you're subject to eminent domain... And sometimes the state will come in and condemn your land and enforce a no-amendment policy. [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwake/2023/03/31/us-has-3rd-lowest-percentage-of-households-that-own-their-homes-without-mortgages/?sh=41af6d263124 https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwake/2023/03/31/us-has-3rd-...

red-iron-pine 3y ago
Don't forget the nightmare that is HOAs
xyzelement 3y ago
Thank you for sharing those stats. It's an interesting stat for sure but not sure it's exactly comparable across countries for a couple of reasons. I am not asserting I am right but sharing the perspective. The Baltic states have a high percentage on this list and as a citizen of one of them (and also US citizen) I can contrast them to the US picture as an example. First, what is a household? If I am 40 and I live in my parents basement of the house they own, that's "100% ownership" vs if I move out on my own and rent, that's only 50% ownership. The US culture for better or worse encourages young people to move out as soon as possible (recently, we talk about people living with their parents longer as a negative economic indicator - but in other countries that's been the case and to a greater degree forever.) Second, what is your population trend? Latvia as an example has gone through a pretty deep depopulation in recent decades, so obviously pressure on the housing stock (and therefore, the price) is much lower compared to places with population growth like the US. Third, related, immigration - newcomers to your country are less likely to be established or have access to ancestral homes. US has high immigration and especially of poor folks from South America so of course that's going to drag the rate down. Japan on the other hand has little inward migration + rapid aging that makes it easier to "fit" the population into family owned homes. Fourth, quality and size of housing. US home-owners invest in relatively better housing stock and build better equity via long term mortgages. A family choses between a home they can buy outright vs a home they wish to have and are happy to finance. It's obviously easier to buy a dilapidated shack outright in rural Latvia than, say, a nice one family in a nice town in the US but that is a choice that people make. TLDR - I am responding to a comment about the American Dream. It's very possible for both natives and immigrants in the US to have a better life (including access to / ownership of better housing) than would be available to them elsewhere.
- brnaftr361 3y ago
  As an American, I was singularly interested in pointing out that most people who are in possession of houses are in the process of purchasing them and not actually owners, and that the entitlements of ownership aren't actually so great except that the property can be bequeathed or sold. I think your assertion are interesting. The first thing that comes to mind was reading about a study on eating disorders and American television — Fijians women with access to American TV very abruptly developed dysmorphia and complementary eating disorders [1]. I think this is interesting in this context because it's programmed self-harm, and it is programmed by the influences of a foreign culture. I would say that it follows, that potential migrants, when exposed to the American dream, are liable to the same inclination towards self-harm programming. Things like eschewing their cultural heritage, migration, assumption of American cultural motifs. And upon migration, because of the differences in wealth, they - depending on where they came from and what they're made of - are easily exploited. They may also be relatively hardy in the context of American adversity. And that's all besides the erosion of communities. And that's an interesting point, as the endemic American population and many other "developed" nations are reeling their populations back - I expect due to decline in the expected quality of life. Succinctly: we shuttle people in to scam them. I can't say what is right or wrong. It's a matter of priorities. As an American, I feel like I'm looking at a socioeconomic hellscape. Yeah, you can get a nice house if you work your life away as a laborer. Our banks will dole out auto loans, housing loans, and they'll trap you in hundreds of thousands of debt because the money [was] free. And maybe I'm all wrong, but I feel like, were I able, I'd prefer a humble life as a goatherd in Romania as opposed to an American economic unit. [1]: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/03/fijian-girls-succumb-to-western-dysmorphia/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/03/fijian-girls-...

red-iron-pine 3y ago

Don't forget the nightmare that is HOAs

xyzelement 3y ago

Thank you for sharing those stats. It's an interesting stat for sure but not sure it's exactly comparable across countries for a couple of reasons. I am not asserting I am right but sharing the perspective. The Baltic states have a high percentage on this list and as a citizen of one of them (and also US citizen) I can contrast them to the US picture as an example. First, what is a household? If I am 40 and I live in my parents basement of the house they own, that's "100% ownership" vs if I move out on my own and rent, that's only 50% ownership. The US culture for better or worse encourages young people to move out as soon as possible (recently, we talk about people living with their parents longer as a negative economic indicator - but in other countries that's been the case and to a greater degree forever.) Second, what is your population trend? Latvia as an example has gone through a pretty deep depopulation in recent decades, so obviously pressure on the housing stock (and therefore, the price) is much lower compared to places with population growth like the US. Third, related, immigration - newcomers to your country are less likely to be established or have access to ancestral homes. US has high immigration and especially of poor folks from South America so of course that's going to drag the rate down. Japan on the other hand has little inward migration + rapid aging that makes it easier to "fit" the population into family owned homes. Fourth, quality and size of housing. US home-owners invest in relatively better housing stock and build better equity via long term mortgages. A family choses between a home they can buy outright vs a home they wish to have and are happy to finance. It's obviously easier to buy a dilapidated shack outright in rural Latvia than, say, a nice one family in a nice town in the US but that is a choice that people make. TLDR - I am responding to a comment about the American Dream. It's very possible for both natives and immigrants in the US to have a better life (including access to / ownership of better housing) than would be available to them elsewhere.

brnaftr361 3y ago
As an American, I was singularly interested in pointing out that most people who are in possession of houses are in the process of purchasing them and not actually owners, and that the entitlements of ownership aren't actually so great except that the property can be bequeathed or sold. I think your assertion are interesting. The first thing that comes to mind was reading about a study on eating disorders and American television — Fijians women with access to American TV very abruptly developed dysmorphia and complementary eating disorders [1]. I think this is interesting in this context because it's programmed self-harm, and it is programmed by the influences of a foreign culture. I would say that it follows, that potential migrants, when exposed to the American dream, are liable to the same inclination towards self-harm programming. Things like eschewing their cultural heritage, migration, assumption of American cultural motifs. And upon migration, because of the differences in wealth, they - depending on where they came from and what they're made of - are easily exploited. They may also be relatively hardy in the context of American adversity. And that's all besides the erosion of communities. And that's an interesting point, as the endemic American population and many other "developed" nations are reeling their populations back - I expect due to decline in the expected quality of life. Succinctly: we shuttle people in to scam them. I can't say what is right or wrong. It's a matter of priorities. As an American, I feel like I'm looking at a socioeconomic hellscape. Yeah, you can get a nice house if you work your life away as a laborer. Our banks will dole out auto loans, housing loans, and they'll trap you in hundreds of thousands of debt because the money [was] free. And maybe I'm all wrong, but I feel like, were I able, I'd prefer a humble life as a goatherd in Romania as opposed to an American economic unit. [1]: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/03/fijian-girls-succumb-to-western-dysmorphia/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/03/fijian-girls-...