4 ms·

Well but aren’t you giving a great example of how that wealth is illusory? The purpose of this comment is to make this conversation interesting instead of reha

Well but aren’t you giving a great example of how that wealth is illusory? The purpose of this comment is to make this conversation interesting instead of rehashing BS about NIMBYs. Don’t get me wrong, measuring billionaires’ wealth by multiplying stock price and stock count is flawed too, for a different reason. But both your wealth and that wealth are really measuring “taxable wealth in the marginal transaction case.” Not a super interesting measurement IMO. If you were an immigrant from the Soviet Union like my parents were for example, sure you were dirt poor but you might have an education, which turned out to be much more valuable in every sense, in most cases, than a house, for baby boomers this century. Like isn’t being educated being “wealthy?” On the flip side, Russia today has 30 percentage points more higher educated people than the US, so tell me Obama, what did that education get them? There’s no reductive lens for this stuff. One POV is that maybe the average American is myopic, their house value number goes up and they regard that as real wealth, just like billionaires do. But it’s not just a matter of understanding what house values are because “that number going up and therefore you become wealthier” isn’t strictly speaking flawed. IMO what we lack is leadership: politicians who have the patience and motivation to figure these things out and inform the public, as opposed to merely being reactive to the hottest crisis on social media.

littlestymaar 3y ago
> Well but aren’t you giving a great example of how that wealth is illusory? It is mostly, since your purchasing power doesn't increase because all house prices rise. But: people don't live forever, and when your home-owning parents die, you now have two homes instead of one, and you'll get much more than if housing price was half the price. Same when your in-laws die too. Obviously this is entirely unsustainable and is a huge driver for the political despair that is spreading in Western countries.
- betaby 3y ago
  > and when your home-owning parents die, you now have two homes instead of one While I absolutely believe it's a thing for someone. It's not a thing for anyone I know. Two factors there. People live longer. An then parents die (70+), they kids ( avg. 2) are at the age of 55+. At that point they housing situation is figured out. Also if ( big if in Canada) house was paid off you inherit half of it ( unless you are single kid which was rare 50+ years ago in Canada). However in Canada what I see is that houses were reverse-mortgaged to supply income on pension and/or live in a retirement home, and thus my friends got trivial inheritances in a tune of tens thousands of CAD dollars after estate liquidation.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    > People live longer. An then parents die (70+), they kids ( avg. 2) are at the age of 55+. At that point they housing situation is figured out. That's exactly what I mean when I say people end up with two homes. In fact, if the home was given to children not owning their home, we would still be in the wealth illusion situation. > However in Canada what I see is that houses were reverse-mortgaged to supply income on pension and/or live in a retirement home, and thus my friends got trivial inheritances in a tune of tens thousands of CAD dollars after estate liquidation. This is not something we see a lot in my country (France) because so far we had decent pensions… But obviously situations vary a lot between countries.
tnel77 3y ago
The wealth may be imaginary, but the debt I took in via my mortgage isn’t haha. I get the point you are making though. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

littlestymaar 3y ago

> Well but aren’t you giving a great example of how that wealth is illusory? It is mostly, since your purchasing power doesn't increase because all house prices rise. But: people don't live forever, and when your home-owning parents die, you now have two homes instead of one, and you'll get much more than if housing price was half the price. Same when your in-laws die too. Obviously this is entirely unsustainable and is a huge driver for the political despair that is spreading in Western countries.

betaby 3y ago
> and when your home-owning parents die, you now have two homes instead of one While I absolutely believe it's a thing for someone. It's not a thing for anyone I know. Two factors there. People live longer. An then parents die (70+), they kids ( avg. 2) are at the age of 55+. At that point they housing situation is figured out. Also if ( big if in Canada) house was paid off you inherit half of it ( unless you are single kid which was rare 50+ years ago in Canada). However in Canada what I see is that houses were reverse-mortgaged to supply income on pension and/or live in a retirement home, and thus my friends got trivial inheritances in a tune of tens thousands of CAD dollars after estate liquidation.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > People live longer. An then parents die (70+), they kids ( avg. 2) are at the age of 55+. At that point they housing situation is figured out. That's exactly what I mean when I say people end up with two homes. In fact, if the home was given to children not owning their home, we would still be in the wealth illusion situation. > However in Canada what I see is that houses were reverse-mortgaged to supply income on pension and/or live in a retirement home, and thus my friends got trivial inheritances in a tune of tens thousands of CAD dollars after estate liquidation. This is not something we see a lot in my country (France) because so far we had decent pensions… But obviously situations vary a lot between countries.

tnel77 3y ago

The wealth may be imaginary, but the debt I took in via my mortgage isn’t haha. I get the point you are making though. Thank you for sharing your perspective.