4 ms·

> We're going to have to have a cultural shift towards housing as shelter, not investment. We can't have this, because a huge fraction of household wealth is t

> We're going to have to have a cultural shift towards housing as shelter, not investment. We can't have this, because a huge fraction of household wealth is tied up in people's houses. If you stop protecting them as investment accounts, you nuke the retirement accounts of 100 million people. To be clear, I completely agree with you that this system has to be dismantled before it gets worse, and a lot of this supposed wealth is illusory anyway: if your house has a "market value" of $750K but no millennial or zoomer can ever possibly pay that, it's not actually worth $750K. But making it actually happen is going to involve a huge, ugly political fight which you can't just handwave away with "we need to have a cultural shift". There are real material considerations at play here, not just culture.

dragontamer 3y ago
> We can't have this, because a huge fraction of household wealth is tied up in people's houses. If you stop protecting them as investment accounts, you nuke the retirement accounts of 100 million people. So the question is if the wealthy can remain wealthy, or if the poor can get houses? I'm sorry, but... as a Catholic the choice is obvious to me. Blessed are the poor, etc. etc. We should favor those who don't have wealth yet. ---------- There's other investments, and any such large-scale buildup of houses will take place over a long-enough time period that investors can reallocate wealth appropriately (reverse mortgages and then move the money to the stock market or something). Talk to a financial advisor if you need help moving wealth out of your house and dumping that onto someone else. Meanwhile, there's no actual solution to the young couple who needs a house for their next baby to raise their family. Get them a damn house. Period.
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  I mean I agree with you. But what I'm trying to convey is, if you go to voters and say, "here's a policy update that will fix the housing crisis and secure a future for the next generation, but it will also subtract $400K from your total wealth", they're going to not just say no, but fight you to their last breath. Proposed policies need to account for this if they're going to have a realistic hope of success. And no, "move it to the stock market" will not fix this problem. Again, imagine putting this question to someone in their 50s with a house they have nearly paid off: "I could take this wealth and move it to the volatile stock market, or I could continue the policy of protectionist zoning restrictions so my always-appreciating asset can keep on appreciating as it has done for decades. Gonna go with door #2, Bob."
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    The wealthy throughout history have often made sacrifices when wealth was obviously unfair. Or when wealth was needed to move society forward. What a wealthy person wants isn't necessarily greed, and we need to stop thinking like that. Even in Roman times, wealthy got together to fund various projects for the greater good. What the wealthy want most of all, is if you take their wealth, that it truly does go towards a greater good. And "building more houses" takes wealth through free-market capitalist systems in any case (ie: its not a direct wealth taking we're talking about, but a steady change as zoning laws allow more houses to be built). ------------ Most of these "wealthy retirees" are looking aghast at their children's opportunities. My brother-in-law's parents may own 3 houses, but they were complaining to me about their daughter's inability to find a house in this current market. They care far, far more about their daughter finding a good house and starting her family, than the value of their 3 houses. And I bet many, many, many other families are in the same situation. (Rich/Wealthy retirees scared for their children / grandchildren).
    - hotpotamus 3y ago
      If they care more about their daughter finding a house, and they have 3, then why don't they give her one?
      - dragontamer 3y ago
        Houses that are good for wealthy retired people are not so good for young couples raising children. In particular, the school systems that are around such homes. Location, Location, Location. Secondly: those houses have tenants. They're not sitting empty. Thirdly, for the young couple. Being tied to your parents financially basically makes them a slave-owner of you. When the parents drop by or use the yard to store project-cars, or refuse to fix issues with the house... the young couple is not in a position to fix those issues themselves without pissing off the parents. (Its not their house after all). So getting their own house leads to a better relationship between child and parent anyway, and should be preferred.
        3y ago
- ta1243 3y ago
  > I'm sorry, but... as a Catholic the choice is obvious to me In the UK the 13th largest landowner is the church. If it used its lands to build at average density of Hackney it could house 2.5 million people.
  - sofixa 3y ago
    That's just regular church stuff in countries with organised centralised religion. That's why one of the major things the French Revolution did was first sell bonds against Church land, then directly sell off that land. It was wasted on the Church and the state needed the money and more productive use out of it (taxes, because of course Church land wasn't taxed).
  - Dig1t 3y ago
    I’m not religious, but it is worth noting that the Catholic Church does provide an insane amount of charity to the less fortunate. Their churches do take up space but they also do provide a ridiculous amount of shelter and free food for poor people.
  - rawgabbit 3y ago
    The Catholic Church own land in the UK?
    - ta1243 3y ago
      Globally the catholic church alone "owns" more land than the entire of France. It's total wealth is measured in dozens of billions of dollars. Obviously this is lower in the UK due to henry viii who confiscated it and gave some to his mates and formed a new church with all that land, but it's the same type of organisation. Personally I'm of the opinion that no entity should own land, it should be rented from the people according to the value, but that's a minority opinion.
willis936 3y ago
>We can't have this, because a huge fraction of household wealth is tied up in people's houses. If you stop protecting them as investment accounts, you nuke the retirement accounts of 100 million people. As someone staring down never having the ability to get into that club: that's a price I'm willing to pay. In fact I'm willing to pay much more than that. This is the issue that dictates my vote.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  I don't think I follow - which club are you not getting into, retirement or home ownership? Because if you don't have a home, then you aren't the one paying if the value decreases.
  - willis936 3y ago
    I don't own a home. Housing depreciation is a price I'm happy to pay. That is indeed the cheekiness of my comment.
spamizbad 3y ago
> you nuke the retirement accounts of 100 million people. I don't understand how this works - if the assumption is you're going to sell your house for a profit, isn't a significant chunk of your upside just going to be rolled into your new housing?
- willis936 3y ago
  It's reverse mortgage. Balance the checkbook on the way out.
jfim 3y ago
> If you stop protecting them as investment accounts, you nuke the retirement accounts of 100 million people. The alternative is that the younger generations defer or forego having children due to housing insecurity.
bugglebeetle 3y ago
> if your house has a "market value" of $750K but no millennial or zoomer can ever possibly pay that, it's not actually worth $750K. The valuation isn’t illusory if you can constrain supply and monopolize ownership. The plan for the next generations is for them to never own housing and instead be parasitized by huge investment firms who buy up all the existing stock.
ToucanLoucan 3y ago
We have to start somewhere. We have people who say that we can't demolish houses as investments because it's one of the few remaining holds of generational, familial wealth left. And that's true. But we also don't have enough housing, and building more housing will naturally devalue the housing that exists. That's also true. But we can't simply let this keep going. There are people who can afford those homes: private equity firms, and they're buying more than they ever have to rent them out. While we bicker about which way to go about it is best while ensuring we harm as few people as possible, the people already in charge right now are teeing up to not only destroy them as investment vehicles for the people who own them, but ensure that no people will ever own them again, that we'll all just be little rent-paying serfs in their various fiefdoms. These issues are complicated, and any action taken will have ripple effects across centuries, much like the practices of redlining have led to generations of impoverished minorities and over-policed communities. But at some point we have to begin solving the damn problems instead of just arguing and debating ad-infinitum while the system already in place is making all of it objectively, factually worse. And frankly, my inner cynic sees the drumbeat of the neoliberal establishment, the ones most likely to have the most valuable "investment accounts" in the form of homes, constantly saying "well we need to make thoughtful considerations about this before we do anything" over and over and over, for years on end, while their investments continue to gain value year over year, and the societal harms inflicted on others continue to not be their problem, as frankly, not positioned or well incentivized to actually fix it since they directly profit from the problem they're being asked to solve. I don't want to believe none of you are capable of empathy, but incentives are much, much stronger than feelings, and none of the establishment middle-class has any solid, incentivized reason to wind down the profit machines that are continuing to make them insanely rich. That worries me.
- ta1243 3y ago
  > We have to start somewhere. We have people who say that we can't demolish houses as investments because it's one of the few remaining holds of generational, familial wealth left. Why would we want that? My great great grandfather was luckier than yours, and that's why I live like a king and you clean my shoes?
everybodyknows 3y ago
> nuke the retirement accounts of 100 million people Your house is only a "retirement account" if you're willing to take out a reverse mortgage, move into some much cheaper home, or share a living room with other old folks in an "assisted living" institution. Some of us on the other hand would prefer a future unencumbered by debt, "aging in place" in our own homes.
erik_seaberg 3y ago
Counterparty risk. If housing craters broadly, you don’t want to bet on reliable payments from banks holding the bag.
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> If you stop protecting them as investment accounts, you nuke the retirement accounts of 100 million people. A similar argument is advanced to protect shareholders who facilitate the degradation of quality of life across society. Perhaps retirement options should come with complete and crystal clear disclosure of actual consequences - and that those consequences needed to be vocally repeated by the buyer prior to acceptance. Recorded and witnessed, of course.
cykros 3y ago
You don't need to sell it to a millenial or zoomer. You sell it to a company, who rents it to a millenial or zoomer.

dragontamer 3y ago

> We can't have this, because a huge fraction of household wealth is tied up in people's houses. If you stop protecting them as investment accounts, you nuke the retirement accounts of 100 million people. So the question is if the wealthy can remain wealthy, or if the poor can get houses? I'm sorry, but... as a Catholic the choice is obvious to me. Blessed are the poor, etc. etc. We should favor those who don't have wealth yet. ---------- There's other investments, and any such large-scale buildup of houses will take place over a long-enough time period that investors can reallocate wealth appropriately (reverse mortgages and then move the money to the stock market or something). Talk to a financial advisor if you need help moving wealth out of your house and dumping that onto someone else. Meanwhile, there's no actual solution to the young couple who needs a house for their next baby to raise their family. Get them a damn house. Period.

Analemma_ 3y ago
I mean I agree with you. But what I'm trying to convey is, if you go to voters and say, "here's a policy update that will fix the housing crisis and secure a future for the next generation, but it will also subtract $400K from your total wealth", they're going to not just say no, but fight you to their last breath. Proposed policies need to account for this if they're going to have a realistic hope of success. And no, "move it to the stock market" will not fix this problem. Again, imagine putting this question to someone in their 50s with a house they have nearly paid off: "I could take this wealth and move it to the volatile stock market, or I could continue the policy of protectionist zoning restrictions so my always-appreciating asset can keep on appreciating as it has done for decades. Gonna go with door #2, Bob."
- dragontamer 3y ago
  The wealthy throughout history have often made sacrifices when wealth was obviously unfair. Or when wealth was needed to move society forward. What a wealthy person wants isn't necessarily greed, and we need to stop thinking like that. Even in Roman times, wealthy got together to fund various projects for the greater good. What the wealthy want most of all, is if you take their wealth, that it truly does go towards a greater good. And "building more houses" takes wealth through free-market capitalist systems in any case (ie: its not a direct wealth taking we're talking about, but a steady change as zoning laws allow more houses to be built). ------------ Most of these "wealthy retirees" are looking aghast at their children's opportunities. My brother-in-law's parents may own 3 houses, but they were complaining to me about their daughter's inability to find a house in this current market. They care far, far more about their daughter finding a good house and starting her family, than the value of their 3 houses. And I bet many, many, many other families are in the same situation. (Rich/Wealthy retirees scared for their children / grandchildren).
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    If they care more about their daughter finding a house, and they have 3, then why don't they give her one?
    - dragontamer 3y ago
      Houses that are good for wealthy retired people are not so good for young couples raising children. In particular, the school systems that are around such homes. Location, Location, Location. Secondly: those houses have tenants. They're not sitting empty. Thirdly, for the young couple. Being tied to your parents financially basically makes them a slave-owner of you. When the parents drop by or use the yard to store project-cars, or refuse to fix issues with the house... the young couple is not in a position to fix those issues themselves without pissing off the parents. (Its not their house after all). So getting their own house leads to a better relationship between child and parent anyway, and should be preferred.
      - 3y ago
ta1243 3y ago
> I'm sorry, but... as a Catholic the choice is obvious to me In the UK the 13th largest landowner is the church. If it used its lands to build at average density of Hackney it could house 2.5 million people.
- sofixa 3y ago
  That's just regular church stuff in countries with organised centralised religion. That's why one of the major things the French Revolution did was first sell bonds against Church land, then directly sell off that land. It was wasted on the Church and the state needed the money and more productive use out of it (taxes, because of course Church land wasn't taxed).
- Dig1t 3y ago
  I’m not religious, but it is worth noting that the Catholic Church does provide an insane amount of charity to the less fortunate. Their churches do take up space but they also do provide a ridiculous amount of shelter and free food for poor people.
- rawgabbit 3y ago
  The Catholic Church own land in the UK?
  - ta1243 3y ago
    Globally the catholic church alone "owns" more land than the entire of France. It's total wealth is measured in dozens of billions of dollars. Obviously this is lower in the UK due to henry viii who confiscated it and gave some to his mates and formed a new church with all that land, but it's the same type of organisation. Personally I'm of the opinion that no entity should own land, it should be rented from the people according to the value, but that's a minority opinion.

willis936 3y ago

>We can't have this, because a huge fraction of household wealth is tied up in people's houses. If you stop protecting them as investment accounts, you nuke the retirement accounts of 100 million people. As someone staring down never having the ability to get into that club: that's a price I'm willing to pay. In fact I'm willing to pay much more than that. This is the issue that dictates my vote.

hotpotamus 3y ago
I don't think I follow - which club are you not getting into, retirement or home ownership? Because if you don't have a home, then you aren't the one paying if the value decreases.
- willis936 3y ago
  I don't own a home. Housing depreciation is a price I'm happy to pay. That is indeed the cheekiness of my comment.

spamizbad 3y ago

> you nuke the retirement accounts of 100 million people. I don't understand how this works - if the assumption is you're going to sell your house for a profit, isn't a significant chunk of your upside just going to be rolled into your new housing?

willis936 3y ago
It's reverse mortgage. Balance the checkbook on the way out.

jfim 3y ago

> If you stop protecting them as investment accounts, you nuke the retirement accounts of 100 million people. The alternative is that the younger generations defer or forego having children due to housing insecurity.

bugglebeetle 3y ago

> if your house has a "market value" of $750K but no millennial or zoomer can ever possibly pay that, it's not actually worth $750K. The valuation isn’t illusory if you can constrain supply and monopolize ownership. The plan for the next generations is for them to never own housing and instead be parasitized by huge investment firms who buy up all the existing stock.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

We have to start somewhere. We have people who say that we can't demolish houses as investments because it's one of the few remaining holds of generational, familial wealth left. And that's true. But we also don't have enough housing, and building more housing will naturally devalue the housing that exists. That's also true. But we can't simply let this keep going. There are people who can afford those homes: private equity firms, and they're buying more than they ever have to rent them out. While we bicker about which way to go about it is best while ensuring we harm as few people as possible, the people already in charge right now are teeing up to not only destroy them as investment vehicles for the people who own them, but ensure that no people will ever own them again, that we'll all just be little rent-paying serfs in their various fiefdoms. These issues are complicated, and any action taken will have ripple effects across centuries, much like the practices of redlining have led to generations of impoverished minorities and over-policed communities. But at some point we have to begin solving the damn problems instead of just arguing and debating ad-infinitum while the system already in place is making all of it objectively, factually worse. And frankly, my inner cynic sees the drumbeat of the neoliberal establishment, the ones most likely to have the most valuable "investment accounts" in the form of homes, constantly saying "well we need to make thoughtful considerations about this before we do anything" over and over and over, for years on end, while their investments continue to gain value year over year, and the societal harms inflicted on others continue to not be their problem, as frankly, not positioned or well incentivized to actually fix it since they directly profit from the problem they're being asked to solve. I don't want to believe none of you are capable of empathy, but incentives are much, much stronger than feelings, and none of the establishment middle-class has any solid, incentivized reason to wind down the profit machines that are continuing to make them insanely rich. That worries me.

ta1243 3y ago
> We have to start somewhere. We have people who say that we can't demolish houses as investments because it's one of the few remaining holds of generational, familial wealth left. Why would we want that? My great great grandfather was luckier than yours, and that's why I live like a king and you clean my shoes?

everybodyknows 3y ago

> nuke the retirement accounts of 100 million people Your house is only a "retirement account" if you're willing to take out a reverse mortgage, move into some much cheaper home, or share a living room with other old folks in an "assisted living" institution. Some of us on the other hand would prefer a future unencumbered by debt, "aging in place" in our own homes.

erik_seaberg 3y ago

Counterparty risk. If housing craters broadly, you don’t want to bet on reliable payments from banks holding the bag.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

> If you stop protecting them as investment accounts, you nuke the retirement accounts of 100 million people. A similar argument is advanced to protect shareholders who facilitate the degradation of quality of life across society. Perhaps retirement options should come with complete and crystal clear disclosure of actual consequences - and that those consequences needed to be vocally repeated by the buyer prior to acceptance. Recorded and witnessed, of course.

cykros 3y ago

You don't need to sell it to a millenial or zoomer. You sell it to a company, who rents it to a millenial or zoomer.