4 ms·
True that, and in isolation that is indeed the case. Yet, even more people than that across the world cannot even do that. What I am (partly rhetorically) aski
by Y-bar 2y ago
True that, and in isolation that is indeed the case. Yet, even more people than that across the world cannot even do that.
What I am (partly rhetorically) asking is: Is it really a workable long-term solution to guard this global land owning minority (which I am part of) if it means continued homelessness, inequality, societal and monetary costs associated with it will continue to plague everyone. To me it seems like yet another question of externalities whereby we externalise the effect and cost of guarding what we have while everyone pays, and those that pays the most are the ones with the least.
- mschuster91 2y agoFor a society as a whole it is better if people own their homes, for multiple reasons: - when people have to rent their homes, all too often it is some investment vehicle for the uber rich that gets the rent. US pension funds are the worst vultures here in Europe - all the wealth generated here disappears to the US instead of staying where it belongs: in our economies. - when people own their home, it removes a lot of stress, especially in times of economic crisis. Not being afraid to make rent each month is a lifechanger (at least once it's paid off - but even falling behind with payments to the bank doesn't get you yeeted out all but immediately). - when people own their homes, they don't need as much money in pensions and wages. That's how Eastern Europe can get away with CoL (except for housing) on Western European levels - they have ownership rates >> 90%, so their economies are far more competitive.
- Y-bar 2y ago> when people have to rent their homes, all too often it is some investment vehicle for the uber rich that gets the rent. This is solvable with a greater mix of affordable housing. It is also solvable by increasing the portion of community-owned (e.g. county-owned/operated housing) which is already at about 20% here. It is also solvable by legislating that a certain amount of rent paid has to be used for upkeep, upgrades, and such. (Where I live already have laws to that effect for other near-monopolies such as water and communications, where the state effectively dictates a maximum reasonable revenue). > when people own their home, it removes a lot of stress, especially in times of economic crisis. Lots of crises over the past decades has seen a significant degree of stress among home-owners over the interest they have to pay. Over the past two years I have not been able to go more than a few days between hearing on national news about homeowners being stressed about interest payments on their homes. Among renters there is significantly less so as there already is a safety net available. So in my world it is the other way around from the picture you paint. (Let me also add a side note about the 2008 mortgage crisis if fewer people had less loans and less risky loans here). > Not being afraid to make rent each month is a lifechanger. Not being able to pay interest each moth is almost all I ever hear about the economy over the past year or so. Cost of interest has been one of the major factors in why the inflation has been so high. See above again. Never about rent. > when people own their homes, they don't need as much money in pensions and wages. This is again a question of social safety net more than anything else. If you have affordable housing you also don't need as much money in pensions and wages to live somewhere good.