5 ms·

Or it could be regulated too.

• paulgb 3y ago
  Regulations can only do so much here. By definition, you can either make housing affordable to young people entering the market, or make housing a path to wealth appreciation for homeowners. They are diametrically opposed goals, despite that most politicians will be happy to tell you we can have both.
  • clipsy 3y ago
    > By definition, you can either make housing affordable to young people entering the market, or make housing a path to wealth appreciation for homeowners By whose definition? Certainly the massive suburban expansion in the 60's and 70's resulted in affordable homes to young Baby Boomers entering the market and also to wealth appreciation for the same.
    • paulgb 3y ago
      By definition that every trade has two parties. Those boomers are now sitting on house wealth for the same reason that millennials without family wealth are priced out of home ownership. If we built more housing, prices would go down for millennials, and those boomer’s investments wouldn’t look as good. One way of putting it: pick a number of hours the average person should have to work over time to buy a house. If you want that number to stay the same, housing can only appreciate as quickly as wage inflation.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • aceazzameen 3y ago
    I see what you're saying. What I mean is right now, I think regulation is the only thing that is capable of making homes a bad investment, which would allow young people to own a home over their heads. The types of regulations are very debatable. All I know is doing nothing will continue this death spiral where the wealthiest individuals/corporations will continue to gobble everything up for every generation.