5 ms·

100%, and it’s not clear there’s any solution to that, because voters will punish anyone who tries to fix it.

tarkin2 2y ago
Well, the renters will reward any government that pushes down house prices i.e. builds more houses. And I assume there are more renters than home owners.
- floydnoel 2y ago
  but which group is more active in voting and politics?
  - tarkin2 2y ago
    I would assume home owners are more likely to vote. But even with a lower voter turn out, there could still be more voting renters. A sibling post has stats from 15 years ago but a lot has changed since then. My gut feeling is that more people are struggling to buy than to pay back mortgages but I have no stats to back that up.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      > But even with a lower voter turn out, there could still be more voting renters. Almost every country has more home owners than renters, so no. In USA its 65%.
  - switch007 2y ago
    Which group lives in cities where their vote counts far less than a vote in the countryside
- qalmakka 2y ago
  It depends on the country or area unfortunately
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  Renters do not want justice or fairness. They want to one day become landlords and themselves suck the blood of the young and healthy. "A slave dreams not of freedom, but of his own slaves."
  - morellt 2y ago
    ^^^ this I don't think people consider the fact that a very good portion of these landowners were once renters that worked their way up and don't want to make it easier for the ones who have to do the same after themselves. It's easy to point fingers from the bottom until suddenly you're looking down from the top and the view ain't that bad
    - robocat 2y ago
      > It's easy to point fingers from the bottom until suddenly you're looking down from the top and the view ain't that bad I wish we had specific words for this type of hypocrisy. Seeing people in wealthy USA complain about people relatively wealthier than them, rather than looking at their own wealth versus the poor in other countries. Obviously the poor in the USA aren't living the life of Reilly, but they're far beyond the wealth of the poor in India. How wealthy were the 99% Occupy Wall Street protesters? You can't make people see what they don't want to.
- petesergeant 2y ago
  > The 2011 Census tells us … around 64% of UK households owned their home That’s not the same as the number of voters, obviously, but I’m not sure it’s a safe assumption, even before it gets into the actual voting dynamics from FPTP… there’s also presumably a lot of renters with their eyes on Mom and Dad’s home as an inheritance.
  - tarkin2 2y ago
    If they inherit the house they would be out of the mortgage casino and lower housing prices won't affect them so much. Of course it won't be as valuable as an asset, but assuming they are primarily using it as a house rather then an asset then lower housing prices may not significantly affect their voting behaviour.
    - petesergeant 2y ago
      > but assuming they are primarily using it as a house Unlikely unless they’re an only child
graemep 2y ago
The government might also be pushed into actions that reduce house prices for other reasons. The biggest reason for nigh house prices (particularly relative to incomes) is the affordability of mortgage payments as a result of low interest rates. Interest rates may have to be raised to control inflation. It is a mistake to think of supply vs demand as "how many people want a house" vs "how many houses are there". Both supply and demand are curves against price. Interest rates shift the demand curve. As the supply curve is inelastic it has an even greater impact in the short term
- spwa4 2y ago
  ... and that's exactly what people want to keep (the shortage) because that's their pension. That is why they won't end up on the street in 20 years. Any attempt to fix the housing situation will need to provide owners, not just with housing, but with a passable income for 40+ years. So, the actual discussion is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=747X0M7Keyw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=747X0M7Keyw And this discussion is hard because to just maintain current pension levels young people will need to be a LOT more productive (ie. work more, and keep less of the fruits of their labour) ... and if we're going to assign blame, the reason is that the pensioners refused to have enough kids. It's not really the kids' fault. We all know what's going to happen too, in general. Some economic upheaval, some drastic event will create enormous disruption and then, finally, it will be politically acceptable to make the hard choice.
  - robocat 2y ago
    > the reason is that the pensioners refused to have enough kids I thought they did have enough kids but that the next generation(s) need to breed faster. In New Zealand and Australia ~30% of population were born in another country. I suspect our government will try and fix the working-age population hole by more immigration? New Zealand is building houses (necessary when increasing population by 50% through immigration). You can see both higher density and new suburban growth (replacing farmland) in my city of Christchurch. It is silly to plan your retirement by looking at the situation right now. The economics of demographics will require grim changes. I'm sceptical of retirement funding, superannuation, and house sales. Even preppers seem like they have some sense. There's little information on potential solutions - everything is based on the presumption that decades away will be just like it is today. New Zealand property market is weird: https://www.imf.org/external/research/housing/ https://www.imf.org/external/research/housing/
tmnvix 2y ago
Politicians are not going to provide a solution, nor are private developers. The solution is a crash that can't be avoided. As hinted at, this could be caused by a sustained increase in interest rates. It has happened before and it will happen again. I would even go so far as to say it is already happening in some property markets (>30% down in real terms in my city already, with no end in sight).

Well, the renters will reward any government that pushes down house prices i.e. builds more houses. And I assume there are more renters than home owners.

floydnoel 2y ago
but which group is more active in voting and politics?
- tarkin2 2y ago
  I would assume home owners are more likely to vote. But even with a lower voter turn out, there could still be more voting renters. A sibling post has stats from 15 years ago but a lot has changed since then. My gut feeling is that more people are struggling to buy than to pay back mortgages but I have no stats to back that up.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > But even with a lower voter turn out, there could still be more voting renters. Almost every country has more home owners than renters, so no. In USA its 65%.
- switch007 2y ago
  Which group lives in cities where their vote counts far less than a vote in the countryside
qalmakka 2y ago
It depends on the country or area unfortunately
carlosjobim 2y ago
Renters do not want justice or fairness. They want to one day become landlords and themselves suck the blood of the young and healthy. "A slave dreams not of freedom, but of his own slaves."
- morellt 2y ago
  ^^^ this I don't think people consider the fact that a very good portion of these landowners were once renters that worked their way up and don't want to make it easier for the ones who have to do the same after themselves. It's easy to point fingers from the bottom until suddenly you're looking down from the top and the view ain't that bad
  - robocat 2y ago
    > It's easy to point fingers from the bottom until suddenly you're looking down from the top and the view ain't that bad I wish we had specific words for this type of hypocrisy. Seeing people in wealthy USA complain about people relatively wealthier than them, rather than looking at their own wealth versus the poor in other countries. Obviously the poor in the USA aren't living the life of Reilly, but they're far beyond the wealth of the poor in India. How wealthy were the 99% Occupy Wall Street protesters? You can't make people see what they don't want to.
petesergeant 2y ago
> The 2011 Census tells us … around 64% of UK households owned their home That’s not the same as the number of voters, obviously, but I’m not sure it’s a safe assumption, even before it gets into the actual voting dynamics from FPTP… there’s also presumably a lot of renters with their eyes on Mom and Dad’s home as an inheritance.
- tarkin2 2y ago
  If they inherit the house they would be out of the mortgage casino and lower housing prices won't affect them so much. Of course it won't be as valuable as an asset, but assuming they are primarily using it as a house rather then an asset then lower housing prices may not significantly affect their voting behaviour.
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    > but assuming they are primarily using it as a house Unlikely unless they’re an only child

graemep 2y ago

The government might also be pushed into actions that reduce house prices for other reasons. The biggest reason for nigh house prices (particularly relative to incomes) is the affordability of mortgage payments as a result of low interest rates. Interest rates may have to be raised to control inflation. It is a mistake to think of supply vs demand as "how many people want a house" vs "how many houses are there". Both supply and demand are curves against price. Interest rates shift the demand curve. As the supply curve is inelastic it has an even greater impact in the short term

spwa4 2y ago
... and that's exactly what people want to keep (the shortage) because that's their pension. That is why they won't end up on the street in 20 years. Any attempt to fix the housing situation will need to provide owners, not just with housing, but with a passable income for 40+ years. So, the actual discussion is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=747X0M7Keyw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=747X0M7Keyw And this discussion is hard because to just maintain current pension levels young people will need to be a LOT more productive (ie. work more, and keep less of the fruits of their labour) ... and if we're going to assign blame, the reason is that the pensioners refused to have enough kids. It's not really the kids' fault. We all know what's going to happen too, in general. Some economic upheaval, some drastic event will create enormous disruption and then, finally, it will be politically acceptable to make the hard choice.
- robocat 2y ago
  > the reason is that the pensioners refused to have enough kids I thought they did have enough kids but that the next generation(s) need to breed faster. In New Zealand and Australia ~30% of population were born in another country. I suspect our government will try and fix the working-age population hole by more immigration? New Zealand is building houses (necessary when increasing population by 50% through immigration). You can see both higher density and new suburban growth (replacing farmland) in my city of Christchurch. It is silly to plan your retirement by looking at the situation right now. The economics of demographics will require grim changes. I'm sceptical of retirement funding, superannuation, and house sales. Even preppers seem like they have some sense. There's little information on potential solutions - everything is based on the presumption that decades away will be just like it is today. New Zealand property market is weird: https://www.imf.org/external/research/housing/ https://www.imf.org/external/research/housing/

tmnvix 2y ago

Politicians are not going to provide a solution, nor are private developers. The solution is a crash that can't be avoided. As hinted at, this could be caused by a sustained increase in interest rates. It has happened before and it will happen again. I would even go so far as to say it is already happening in some property markets (>30% down in real terms in my city already, with no end in sight).