5 ms·

> In their 70s, Swiss homeowners are 11 times wealthier than renters their age, according to a study by Ursina Kuhn at the Swiss Foundation for Research in Soci

> In their 70s, Swiss homeowners are 11 times wealthier than renters their age, according to a study by Ursina Kuhn at the Swiss Foundation for Research in Social Sciences in Lausanne. > The catch is that in order to become a homeowner, “you need wealth to get more wealth,” as Ms. Kuhn put it. We're approaching a Neo-Feudalism society where the only people who will be able to afford to buy homes are those whose parents and grandparents were able to buy homes. Tbh if you replaced "Switzerland" here with "Canada" this article reads the same as many other articles I've read recently. This is becoming a very common problem in many jurisdictions. I think the spiking costs of housing and incredible rent seeking is/will have really bad impacts on the economy as more and more wealth is devoted purely to housing and unavailable for anything else. I'm lucky enough to have been able to buy property and to have stability of housing tenure, but as a result, despite posting this comment on an entrepreneurial tech forum, I couldn't imagine being able to create a startup right now or ever. Where would the money come from? All my money is going toward housing costs. This is the big problem as rents (both from landlords and other oligopolies) take up a bigger and bigger share of people's income. No money for creating a new business, and no money for customers to spend at a new business. Everyone suffers.

gonzo41 3y ago
The problem is also compounded by the fact that "Bricks and Mortar" are considered a middle class investment. And most of that investing class aren't really ok with accepting that a loss of money can also be part of having an investment. So consequently they create pressure with their political mass to stall all changes in policy that may be for the better. I don't see a crash coming, I see stalling economies as all the well just locks itself up in housing for a generation.
purplerabbit 3y ago
I think the solution to this is an incremental shift towards property taxes + away from income taxes. Doing so would nullify the investment arms race that’s turning home ownership into a sick financial game. If you’re paying 6%/year in property taxes, a home is no longer an “investment”, and the house hoarding (especially by the likes of investors buying single-family housing) will cease. People will buy homes to have a place to live, and the market will cool off. This comes with the additional benefit of progressively taxing wealth instead of solely income. Wealth discrepancy is orders of magnitude worse than income discrepancy, and currently we’re doing almost nothing about that.
- BirdieNZ 3y ago
  The even better variation on this is land taxes (see Henry George's Progress and Poverty, or the summary here: https://gameofrent.com https://gameofrent.com). There are heaps of advantages to this approach, like no capital flight (can't take land overseas with you), no economic inefficiencies (taxing land doesn't get rid of land, whereas taxing pretty much anything else reduces the supply of that thing, taxing land doesn't reduce house-building the way property taxes do).
- Ckirby 3y ago
  Nonono, no more of these halfbaked tax reform ideas. There's nothing in society that says we need to "compensate" new taxes by getting rid of older ones. If we as a society decide that someone's speculative actions are harmful, there is no good reason not to tax them into oblivion
  - mrangle 3y ago
    There is no "we as a society decide". No one in their right mind would argue that the government widely acts in the favor of those who elect it, especially in terms of revenue collecting and spending. The government decides and the government mostly has its own agendas. Yet now the correct choice is supposed to be made in regard to property ownership social "harm", using taxes as the specific tool to correct it? If the government, or "we as a society", can't directly justify their goal being enforced via restrictive law then enforcing the goal via taxation isn't democratically justified (ie: an incentive provided for the tax collecting gov). >no more of these halfbaked tax reform ideas. Why would US citizens be in favor of tax reform? What a crazy idea that has zero historical precedent.
    - purplerabbit 3y ago
      How should the government decide which taxes to implement, then?
    - Ckirby 3y ago
      I have an even crazier idea, what if we just voted for straight up expropriation? But I don't feel like having this discussion with someone who by all likely hood wouldn't be affected by this issue since they don't own any rental properties to begin with, wouldn't be affected by this in any way, and is just making an argument from an ideological reflex Not every country is a corrupt failed state and plenty of western representative democracies have acted on behalf of their constituents best interests If you dont make a good faith argument but instead throw your hands up saying "they're all crooks anyway" then what's the point of even trying?
joelthelion 3y ago
> In their 70s, Swiss homeowners are 11 times wealthier than renters their age, This doesn't mean anything. It just states the obvious, which is that people who can afford super expensive houses tend to be rich.
yodsanklai 3y ago
> We're approaching a Neo-Feudalism society where the only people who will be able to afford to buy homes are those whose parents and grandparents were able to buy homes. Prices of homes vary greatly. If your parents owned an apartment in a unappealing town, that won't pay your bay area house. Conversely, you may not be able to afford a house in the bay area while working there, but save enough in one year to buy a house somewhere else.
- ghaff 3y ago
  And even this story mentions Zurich, Geneva, and Bern that I notices. Switzerland is expensive overall (and home ownership is low overall) but that major thriving metros in countries are expensive hasn't exactly been a surprise for a long time. I suspect it's easier to live in cheaper areas--even relatively nearby some metros--that may just not be a convenient daily commute to those metros. The Bay Area is somewhat unusual in that living 60-90 minutes away from the city mostly doesn't help you much.
  - pllbnk 3y ago
    That's why I think remote work could be a great equalizer. While understanding that not everyone can work remotely, it should be employer's obligation to prove that work must be done on-premise (factory workers, most service workers and so on). The rest could spread into areas that have not been considered attractive from the employment point of view for the past 20+ years. This raises valuations of property in those areas, brings in businesses, while at the same time reducing valuations of metropolitan areas. If only elected governments felt any kind of responsibility to make equality a priority.
huijzer 3y ago
> We're approaching a Neo-Feudalism society where the only people who will be able to afford to buy homes are those whose parents and grandparents were able to buy homes. Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if the parents and grandparents lived more frugally. Spending more than you earn will make you poor regardless of income.

gonzo41 3y ago

The problem is also compounded by the fact that "Bricks and Mortar" are considered a middle class investment. And most of that investing class aren't really ok with accepting that a loss of money can also be part of having an investment. So consequently they create pressure with their political mass to stall all changes in policy that may be for the better. I don't see a crash coming, I see stalling economies as all the well just locks itself up in housing for a generation.

purplerabbit 3y ago

I think the solution to this is an incremental shift towards property taxes + away from income taxes. Doing so would nullify the investment arms race that’s turning home ownership into a sick financial game. If you’re paying 6%/year in property taxes, a home is no longer an “investment”, and the house hoarding (especially by the likes of investors buying single-family housing) will cease. People will buy homes to have a place to live, and the market will cool off. This comes with the additional benefit of progressively taxing wealth instead of solely income. Wealth discrepancy is orders of magnitude worse than income discrepancy, and currently we’re doing almost nothing about that.

BirdieNZ 3y ago
The even better variation on this is land taxes (see Henry George's Progress and Poverty, or the summary here: https://gameofrent.com https://gameofrent.com). There are heaps of advantages to this approach, like no capital flight (can't take land overseas with you), no economic inefficiencies (taxing land doesn't get rid of land, whereas taxing pretty much anything else reduces the supply of that thing, taxing land doesn't reduce house-building the way property taxes do).
Ckirby 3y ago
Nonono, no more of these halfbaked tax reform ideas. There's nothing in society that says we need to "compensate" new taxes by getting rid of older ones. If we as a society decide that someone's speculative actions are harmful, there is no good reason not to tax them into oblivion
- mrangle 3y ago
  There is no "we as a society decide". No one in their right mind would argue that the government widely acts in the favor of those who elect it, especially in terms of revenue collecting and spending. The government decides and the government mostly has its own agendas. Yet now the correct choice is supposed to be made in regard to property ownership social "harm", using taxes as the specific tool to correct it? If the government, or "we as a society", can't directly justify their goal being enforced via restrictive law then enforcing the goal via taxation isn't democratically justified (ie: an incentive provided for the tax collecting gov). >no more of these halfbaked tax reform ideas. Why would US citizens be in favor of tax reform? What a crazy idea that has zero historical precedent.
  - purplerabbit 3y ago
    How should the government decide which taxes to implement, then?
  - Ckirby 3y ago
    I have an even crazier idea, what if we just voted for straight up expropriation? But I don't feel like having this discussion with someone who by all likely hood wouldn't be affected by this issue since they don't own any rental properties to begin with, wouldn't be affected by this in any way, and is just making an argument from an ideological reflex Not every country is a corrupt failed state and plenty of western representative democracies have acted on behalf of their constituents best interests If you dont make a good faith argument but instead throw your hands up saying "they're all crooks anyway" then what's the point of even trying?

joelthelion 3y ago

> In their 70s, Swiss homeowners are 11 times wealthier than renters their age, This doesn't mean anything. It just states the obvious, which is that people who can afford super expensive houses tend to be rich.

yodsanklai 3y ago

> We're approaching a Neo-Feudalism society where the only people who will be able to afford to buy homes are those whose parents and grandparents were able to buy homes. Prices of homes vary greatly. If your parents owned an apartment in a unappealing town, that won't pay your bay area house. Conversely, you may not be able to afford a house in the bay area while working there, but save enough in one year to buy a house somewhere else.

ghaff 3y ago
And even this story mentions Zurich, Geneva, and Bern that I notices. Switzerland is expensive overall (and home ownership is low overall) but that major thriving metros in countries are expensive hasn't exactly been a surprise for a long time. I suspect it's easier to live in cheaper areas--even relatively nearby some metros--that may just not be a convenient daily commute to those metros. The Bay Area is somewhat unusual in that living 60-90 minutes away from the city mostly doesn't help you much.
- pllbnk 3y ago
  That's why I think remote work could be a great equalizer. While understanding that not everyone can work remotely, it should be employer's obligation to prove that work must be done on-premise (factory workers, most service workers and so on). The rest could spread into areas that have not been considered attractive from the employment point of view for the past 20+ years. This raises valuations of property in those areas, brings in businesses, while at the same time reducing valuations of metropolitan areas. If only elected governments felt any kind of responsibility to make equality a priority.

huijzer 3y ago

> We're approaching a Neo-Feudalism society where the only people who will be able to afford to buy homes are those whose parents and grandparents were able to buy homes. Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if the parents and grandparents lived more frugally. Spending more than you earn will make you poor regardless of income.