3 ms·
I wouldn't describe it as a matter of fairness, thinking deeper about it. We're really just mortgaging quarterly earnings for those with major residential real
by lenerdenator 3y ago
I wouldn't describe it as a matter of fairness, thinking deeper about it.
We're really just mortgaging quarterly earnings for those with major residential real estate holdings (like pension funds paying out to those born during the Baby Boom) with future economic growth at this point. When asked if they'd rather have sustainable growth that will see them able to put food on their tables 20 years from now or make the line go up over the next 90 days, capital has chosen the latter. That _will_ have a consequence down the line, and it won't be a good one.
- starttoaster 3y agoThe other user brought up that the cost to build a home has gone up substantially, and this response seems more like an addendum onto what you were already saying rather than a response to that. Just fyi. I think there is inherent truth to what you're saying as well, in that business decisions more often than not seem driven by the dangling carrot of short term profits. But there can be a multitude of reasons why the cost of a house is just out of reach to what we used to consider the "average middle class American."
- lenerdenator 3y agoWhat builders/bankers want to build costs more. A 3br/2ba/2ga split-level isn't as profitable as, say, an upper-middle-class McMansion.
- poulsbohemian 3y agoAh, I think I get you now - you are talking more about issues of wealth or opportunity inequality, IE: structural problems, where perhaps the housing is really a symptom as much as a cause. It's a rubber-hits-the-road view of what's happening overall.