4 ms·

> Rising home values are a zero-sum game US Home Ownership Rate: 65.6%. It may be a zero sum game (debatable) - but 65% are one side of the coin with a huge pi

> Rising home values are a zero-sum game US Home Ownership Rate: 65.6%. It may be a zero sum game (debatable) - but 65% are one side of the coin with a huge pile of cash and 35% are on the other with a lot less. As a wise man once said - the good of the many outweigh the needs of the few

lantry 2y ago
Is increased home value really that good? and does 35% of the country really count as "few"?
darth_avocado 2y ago
Wait till the 65% need to live elsewhere and find out they can’t afford to.
- olliecornelia 2y ago
  [dead]
yetihehe 2y ago
A joke originating from communism time in eastern europe: Politicians: Comrades, our living conditions and pay constantly increase. Citizens: Oh, that's very good for you.
- blitzar 2y ago
  Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make
greentxt 2y ago
Probably worth noting that homes are owned by old people, and the old people are in control of the government, making policy that is self serving to the grest detriment of younger Americans. For example social security will end in about 10-15 years, after those old people like Mitch McConnel have gone to bed. Meanwhile the youngsters are paying huge sums into the ponzi scheme, and the cost to service US debt remains an unsolved problem. There was a good Ted talk recently by Scott Galloway highlighting just how badly the youth are getting screwed. I disagree with most all of his proferred solutions but he did a great job of describing the issue.
- drpossum 2y ago
  A shocking number of homes are also owned by the investor class and it's getting worse.
- greentxt 2y ago
  Here is the talk. Every multigenerational American family should be forced to watch this and discuss the ethical implications of each peesons vote in future elections. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E
  - MobileVet 2y ago
    Came here hoping someone would have already posted this...
- sgerenser 2y ago
  Social security isn't ending in 10-15 years, it just won't be able to pay 100% of promised benefits, only about 80%. In reality, sometime in the next 10 years there will be new legislation to fix it, which will probably result in increasing the retirement age (resulting in a small cut in benefits), higher SS taxes particularly on high earners, and other formula tweaks.
  - greentxt 2y ago
    So they'll just move the goalposts, not remove them entirely? Isn't it a bit difficult to make accurate projections when the current state of things is totally unprecedented? In any case, thanks for giving me hope. Hope helps me cope. I really shouldn't doubt our political class. They always do right in the end. God bless America.
    - sgerenser 2y ago
      Yes the goalposts will be moved. But even if they don't (almost 0% chance of this), the worst case scenario is an across-the-board 20% benefit cut. Nobody was ever predicting or seriously expecting Social Security to just go away.
naasking 2y ago
> As a wise man once said - the good of the many outweigh the needs of the few AKA, the tyranny of the majority.
hylaride 2y ago
> As a wise man once said - the good of the many outweigh the needs of the few Ah utilitarianism - much like communism, it's a good idea in theory, but bad in practice. Here in Canada, the young are about to vote conservative(1) over the alternatives for the first time in 40 years for one simple reason: because the entire housing market, either to own or rent, has become completely unaffordable (1 bedrooms in the greater Toronto area rarely go for less than $2500). My first apartment alone in the central part of the city 20 years ago was $700 for a decent one, and starving artists/students/etc could find lesser ones for a lot less. The home ownership rate by age 30 has gone from well over 50% in 2000 to 36.5% today. The needs of the few are becoming the needs of the majority and they're not in a good mood electorally. Also, Switzerland has a home ownership rate of barely 40% (in fact if you own a home, you can get taxed on the potential rental income it COULD provide whether you derive said income or not); the result is the Swiss are more mobile for jobs and have more of their wealth tied to other assets and is one of the per capita wealthiest larger economies in the world. (1) This is not meant to be a pro/anti-conservative statement, merely a point on the sea-change of what can happen when you "protect" the wealth of one group to the detriment of others.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  If Canadians really wanted to fix the housing market, they'd vote NDP. Vancouver went from twice Toronto prices to comparable-to-Toronto prices under NDP government. Meanwhile the Ontario Conservatives refuse to bring in sensible policies like allowing 4-plexes in single unit zones.
  - hylaride 2y ago
    The local councillors in Toronto who are most opposed to 4-plexes tend to be ndp affiliated “champaign socialists” who want to stop “greedy developers” from destroying “family homes”. There’s also a more suburban right leaning group who don’t want the “socialist downtowners” to densify their car oriented way of life (Doug Ford comes from this area). It’s really quite sad and the end result is there are a handful of areas that get super dense development and there’s relatively little midrise.

lantry 2y ago

Is increased home value really that good? and does 35% of the country really count as "few"?

darth_avocado 2y ago

Wait till the 65% need to live elsewhere and find out they can’t afford to.

olliecornelia 2y ago
[dead]

yetihehe 2y ago

A joke originating from communism time in eastern europe: Politicians: Comrades, our living conditions and pay constantly increase. Citizens: Oh, that's very good for you.

blitzar 2y ago
Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make

greentxt 2y ago

Probably worth noting that homes are owned by old people, and the old people are in control of the government, making policy that is self serving to the grest detriment of younger Americans. For example social security will end in about 10-15 years, after those old people like Mitch McConnel have gone to bed. Meanwhile the youngsters are paying huge sums into the ponzi scheme, and the cost to service US debt remains an unsolved problem. There was a good Ted talk recently by Scott Galloway highlighting just how badly the youth are getting screwed. I disagree with most all of his proferred solutions but he did a great job of describing the issue.

drpossum 2y ago
A shocking number of homes are also owned by the investor class and it's getting worse.
greentxt 2y ago
Here is the talk. Every multigenerational American family should be forced to watch this and discuss the ethical implications of each peesons vote in future elections. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E
- MobileVet 2y ago
  Came here hoping someone would have already posted this...
sgerenser 2y ago
Social security isn't ending in 10-15 years, it just won't be able to pay 100% of promised benefits, only about 80%. In reality, sometime in the next 10 years there will be new legislation to fix it, which will probably result in increasing the retirement age (resulting in a small cut in benefits), higher SS taxes particularly on high earners, and other formula tweaks.
- greentxt 2y ago
  So they'll just move the goalposts, not remove them entirely? Isn't it a bit difficult to make accurate projections when the current state of things is totally unprecedented? In any case, thanks for giving me hope. Hope helps me cope. I really shouldn't doubt our political class. They always do right in the end. God bless America.
  - sgerenser 2y ago
    Yes the goalposts will be moved. But even if they don't (almost 0% chance of this), the worst case scenario is an across-the-board 20% benefit cut. Nobody was ever predicting or seriously expecting Social Security to just go away.

naasking 2y ago

> As a wise man once said - the good of the many outweigh the needs of the few AKA, the tyranny of the majority.

hylaride 2y ago

> As a wise man once said - the good of the many outweigh the needs of the few Ah utilitarianism - much like communism, it's a good idea in theory, but bad in practice. Here in Canada, the young are about to vote conservative(1) over the alternatives for the first time in 40 years for one simple reason: because the entire housing market, either to own or rent, has become completely unaffordable (1 bedrooms in the greater Toronto area rarely go for less than $2500). My first apartment alone in the central part of the city 20 years ago was $700 for a decent one, and starving artists/students/etc could find lesser ones for a lot less. The home ownership rate by age 30 has gone from well over 50% in 2000 to 36.5% today. The needs of the few are becoming the needs of the majority and they're not in a good mood electorally. Also, Switzerland has a home ownership rate of barely 40% (in fact if you own a home, you can get taxed on the potential rental income it COULD provide whether you derive said income or not); the result is the Swiss are more mobile for jobs and have more of their wealth tied to other assets and is one of the per capita wealthiest larger economies in the world. (1) This is not meant to be a pro/anti-conservative statement, merely a point on the sea-change of what can happen when you "protect" the wealth of one group to the detriment of others.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
If Canadians really wanted to fix the housing market, they'd vote NDP. Vancouver went from twice Toronto prices to comparable-to-Toronto prices under NDP government. Meanwhile the Ontario Conservatives refuse to bring in sensible policies like allowing 4-plexes in single unit zones.
- hylaride 2y ago
  The local councillors in Toronto who are most opposed to 4-plexes tend to be ndp affiliated “champaign socialists” who want to stop “greedy developers” from destroying “family homes”. There’s also a more suburban right leaning group who don’t want the “socialist downtowners” to densify their car oriented way of life (Doug Ford comes from this area). It’s really quite sad and the end result is there are a handful of areas that get super dense development and there’s relatively little midrise.