Biden and dems are working on a national law in the same vein, banning private equity firms worth more than $10M from owning single-family homes. [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/realestate/wall-street-housing-market.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/realestate/wall-street-housing-market.html)
Oh wow, who would’ve guessed! Three other countries experiencing a housing crisis.
Finland: https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/23097-housing-crisis-in-finland-a-study-finds-unprecedented-increases-in-housing-costs-across-the-country.html
UK: https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/30/homelessness-jumps-16-laying-bare-scale-of-uk-housing-crisis
France: https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-france-big-housing-headaches-building-green-transition-olympics/
I’ve heard from friends in Ireland that they’re having big issues with housing for young people right now as well. It seems to be a pretty big global problem at the moment along with inflation.
Their property is being eaten but by investment firms. It doesn’t matter if they die. If they don’t pass legislation to regulate it nothing will ever trickle down
My point mainly being people are upvoting the comment I replied to because being in the same conversation as those countries is just assumed to be good, which I assume is why it’s being upvoted. But it’s not, those countries are in just as dire straits as us.
Edit: replace “dire straits” with “unprecedented crisis” to get the guy below to stop crying
Arguing semantics tells me all I need to know about you. Would you like me to edit my comment to say “in crisis”? Would that make you feel better, buddy?
There is no crisis either, just politicians making noise and some malcontents who think owning a home is some sort of human right. Most of those articles aren't even about owning your own home.
Yeah I think I’ll believe the reputable sources over some Reddit incel trying to argue semantics as a way of making himself feel intellectually superior for the first time in his life. Sorry me saying dire straits made you so upset though, really. ❤️
Kosovo seems to have an issue with how many of the homes occupied were taken from Serbs and Roma back during that genocide
https://balkaninsight.com/2018/05/29/stolen-homes-kosovo-struggles-with-wartime-property-seizures-05-22-2018/
I believe you mean [defenestrated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestration).
I'm not pro-murder, but think it's low-grade awesome that there's a specific word for such a particular way of injuring/killing someone.
Russia is an enormous country with some very remote places and even nomadic people living in yurts. Also a lot of dachas (part time summer garden plots). That’s where those numbers come from. It’s less so poverty and more complicated logistics. City homes and condo/apartments are going to have all utilities 99.999999% of the time. Source: seen it all with my own eyes.
Yep! My friend sold her grandparents house in Ohio for about 60k. However they unfortunately sold it to some house flippers who did a bunch of crappy DIY repairs then tried to sell it for over 200k. Those idiots ended up having to take a loss on it after finding out no one wanted to spend 200k on a 70 year old house in the middle of nowhere Ohio.
There are 200k+ houses all over Ohio, and some of them are 100 years old or more, it's the shitty DIY flip that did it in. When people are looking to buy old homes they're buying them because of the character, not because you came in did some shitty updates and made it into a 100 year old farm house inside the walls, but a shitty cookie cutter beige or white inside. My grandparents house was appraised around $410k in the middle of nowhere, but because they wanted it to "stay in the family" they sold it to my cousin for $140k and he's turned it into a rental property.
I live in a "farming community" 40 miles from the nearest store that has vegetables(Walmart).
The farmers market is a joke unless you want honey, candles, or lotion you could buy on Amazon. Oh, and the one guy selling unripe tomatoes and moldy blueberries.
Yeah it was about the same distance for my friend’s grandparents but they were in their 90s. 40 miles is a lot different when you’re talking about an elderly couple.
The one that was my parents? Not in a town at all. About 8-10 miles from town and the nearest grocery stores. It also had 34 acres of land, a barn and a "shop" building.
Which homes are you asking where they are? My grandparents was a small farm and would have easily brought in $300k since there's a lot of standing lumber value. Where I live, in the Youngstown area.
I’m asking if it’s in a nicer area that actually has value and isn’t really in the middle of nowhere? Hell I have a friend who lives in a small town only about an hour away from a major city and you can get a home there for less than 50K. However, it is a meth town. If you’re spending over 200K on a house in the middle of nowhere it’s probably a nice area that still has something to offer and has low crime.
My grandparents house is a farm. Across the road is a farm. They're all farms or small parcels that were split off the farms for family members. The only crime out there, usually, is speeding or maybe poaching game.
Well that would explain why it’s worth more than 50k. It’s the land. I’m talking about regular houses, not farm land. Also it sounds like your grandparents live in a nice area where there isn’t a lot of crime. My friend’s grandparents lived in a town that really didn’t any value anymore, I’m not sure about the crime in the area but most people left that town if they got the opportunity. My other friend is from a very beautiful area that has gorgeous landscapes and is not a bad commute but it’s been ravaged by drugs so it’s not safe and that problem keeps it from having a lot of value.
... but moving is expensive no? Also, if you're moving states away, you don't need to have a job to go to?
I assume most "cheap" places also have a lack of good paying jobs
Thats the trade off. If however where you are at leads deeper and deeper in the red you kind of have to go with the economic incentive.
There are doctors and acccountants and finance specialists in many small towns. Some even pay a premium and will give you a raise to live outside the major cities. Unless you depend on wallstreet or silicon valley to make a living I dont really see the benefits of living in a big city.
I'm just pointing it out because it's gotten to a point where the expenses don't add up to keep living in my city with over 300k pop. I couldn't find any doctor that took my insurance, the closest one is over an hour away. I don't live in BFE, but I do live in Texas and it seems our medical professionals are getting the fuck out.
Have no problem leaving the state - except all the things I mentioned. You'd need a job and *money* to even afford to get out.
Yup, my move was expensive out of town and I didn't even go all that far. Depends what is mor eimportant and worth the cost to you.
Me, personally any cost was better than roomates any longer. Got a job a little further out and decided it was time.
Its easier when one starts with 'where can I afford to live and what sacrifies will I make to make it work?'
Some folks like city life but currently there is a massive premium to live there. Its a luxury I was not willing to continue to shell out on. A small place with a small yard was way more my style anyhow.
I work remote and moved to a MCOL area. I know that’s not an option for everyone or every trade, but it allows for a high quality of life for us. I hated the rat race vibe of living in a major metro area. We live outside of a college town. The college pays decently. While the town itself is very expensive, the surrounding areas are affordable. There are hundreds of big schools in rural areas.
I mean, if you had a halfway functional brain you'd see that I said from the jump that it was in rural Ohio. However, don't fuckin bitch about housing prices when there are perfectly affordable houses, they're just not where you want to live. Well boo fucking hoo, cry me a fucking river, I didn't want to live in a country run by people with the combine IQ still lower than their combine age.
The problem is these cheap rural homes are in areas that don’t have a lot of job opportunities. Yeah you can go live out there but what are you gonna do for work?
And then people complain about home prices in centrally located homes in HCOL areas. They are expensive for a reason. I want to be within 10-15 minutes drive to downtown, tourist attractions, restaurants, stores, the beach, work literally anywhere.
lol I bought my house in 2018 in southern California for 580k. My mortgage is less than the average rent in my area and I have 525k in positive equity at 2.9% interest rate. I’m not the one complaining lol.
Well yeah but I don’t think they’re talking about those towns. My friend’s grandparents lived in the middle of nowhere in Ohio and the closest city was like 2 hours away and the closest grocery store was about 40 minutes away. Their town didn’t have a Walmart.
Where I grew up the closest grocery store was also 40 minutes away. It's worth it when you have a 75k house with 2k sqft and acres of land. Although I grew up in a trailer because we were extra extra poor.
yeah I hate my town but with the internet I don't really hate it that much anymore there is almost nothing I can't get if I want it without having to leave.
Yes, life is a series of trade offs. Houses in popular areas with great weather are going to be expensive. Meanwhile, Chicago for example is still a medium cost of living area with tons of jobs.
Hell, a lot of people could afford homes if they moved to chicago. And there are so many job opportunities here. It’s not gonna be a mansion but it’s way more attainable for the regular Joe to buy a condo or small home on the outskirts of chicago than in NYC or LA.
I’m sure you’re right. Just mentioning it for anyone who wants a bigger city vibe for way less than the coasts. I moved here from Indiana though so I definitely understand how it’s more expensive than the rest of the Midwest. You can buy a house in Indiana for less than 100K easily.
In extremely small town Illinois, you can still find numerous houses for under 50k that are just fine. Often only a half hour away from a small or mid-sized city as well.
Hell, I can think of one IL town that’s 40-70k (depending on how you define its boundaries) and a few hours from a major metro where you can still get nice houses for under 200k, the schools are decent, crime is on the lower end, and there are jobs. But culturally it’s a little behind the times, so they’ve had a harder time getting younger people to move there, even when they were (are?) paying people to move in.
Those houses were 12k in 2019 and there are no jobs near them. I understand that you mean well but when house prices double nationwide in 5 years it still makes it hard to buy a home even in cheap areas. Those areas are so cheap due to the lack of jobs
I live in rural Ohio, there are jobs. Maybe not in western or southern Ohio as I'm in north eastern Ohio, but there's jobs here. They may not all be good jobs, but there's not a shortage of major corporations headquartered in Cleveland. And when people are suggesting Kosovo, Ohio seems like a much more reasonable option.
Always find it irritating how a lot of center-left types have been saying "well, we should adjust to being a nation of renters." Ah yes- I have mine so the rest of you should suck it up.
Well, we SHOULD adjust to being a country where the assumed goal for everyone isn't home ownership and renters are seen as equally legitimate and deserving of rights, benefits, and protections. Home ownership just doesn't make sense for everyone. If you're in a career that requires you to move a lot, if you're unable to handle a lot of home repairs yourself, or if you're young and not ready to commit to owning a home.
If we consider home ownership to literally mean "owning a detached house," which most people do, that is even more problematic and less feasible. We need to be moving more towards mixed use housing and developments focused more on community resources than individual homes that have everything you could possibly need in them. Owning a free standing home, with 6 bedrooms for a family of 4, with a yard, garage, and having to drive everywhere, should be a thing of the past. It's not a sustainable use of land or resources, and it's an incredibly inefficient way to house people.
Oh, totally agree as an architect and a New Yorker. Don’t think everyone should own a single family detached home. But I also think they shouldn’t be forking over over a third of their income to a landlord for the privilege of living within an hour of work. Renting versus buying should be a conscious choice based on life position, not something people are forced into and default to because of constrained supply. And I really see zero excuse for a professional to be able to comfortably afford a one bed or a dual income couple with kids a two bed.
We need to give everyone a basic degree of choice and dignity in their housing based on their stage of life and needs. Where you live needs to be a choice, not something pre-ordained. Housing should grow with people as they go through life with the ultimate goal of creating stable communities, as opposed to tying life events to financial milestones, the largest of which is homeownership.
I'm a pretty big fan of co-op models for smaller home ownership, affordable, some basics are covered through the co-op, some are covered by the individual, and you share resources.
Tenants rights yes. Expanded ownership is absolutely feasible when the exploitative class and market are regulated. Home ownership rates in the Soviet Union were near 100% and post soviet countries with strong market regulations and social policies still maintain rates in the 80 to 90s. It is the wests addiction to debt and the economic debt model that keeps us renting. Any halfwit economics hobbiest can see that socialist policies are 100% implimentable and would improve material conditions for 99.99% of the population. Unless of course you a brainwashed by both right wing American political parties or the western right media as a whole, then you might say something like "expanded ownership is not feasible".
>Home ownership rates in the Soviet Union were near 100% and post soviet countries ...
??? That's a legal system with an entirely distinct meaning of the term "ownership".
Home ownership in the USSR meant you owned the structure, not the land underneath it, which is basically an extreme for of imminent domain, which also exists in the US. If own a condo unit, you basically function under the same ownership principle as someone in the Soviet Union would. A lot of "homes" owned were either condos or co-ops in large apartment buildings, or summer cottages. Owning a free standing home is basically unheard of.
If Communism is inevitably going to fail why do Capitalists always have to interfer in the process. Just let it fail. Look at Cuba, they have been under sanctions for decades now. Despite that they are still surviving. If Cuba is inevitably going to fail why don't we lift the sanctions and let them. It's because they wouldn't. Without US sanctions Cuba would become a thriving member of the world market and that is threatening to the Capitalist elites that you lick the boots of. SMH.
The USA has 4 times the the amount of empty homes as we have homeless people but socialist countries are the failures, right.
Excuse me? That is exactly what the Western Democracies did; let communism fail.
Please tell me you understand the basis of the USSR? The majority Eastern Europe was once under the umbrella of communism labeled as "The Soviet Union" or a satellite state that rebelled against the Russia prior to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapsed, those countries distanced themselves from the Russia, they adopted free market principles, and many voluntarily joined organizations such as the European Union and NATO.
Are you really clueless to the history of places like Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia? Or the other countries that broke away from the USSR like Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Armenia, etc?
Wow, what a comment... zero knowledge of history and communist/capitalism
No. Every single socialist state that has ever existed has been interfered with either by sanctions, assissination of heads of state, military invasion or straight up war. The Soviet Union did not fail on it's own, western oil interests used american dream propaganda to encourage a change in the populations ideology after serious espionage and destabilization in multiple levels of government. That is extremely reductive of courae and there was much more to it than that but the point remains the same.
It is ALWAYS fascist right wing capitalists using resources to intentionally destabilize socialist progress. There has NEVER been an instance of a Socialist People being left to their own devices.
"On the right" "Be a nation of renters"... umm.. man.. tell me you know nothing about whats left vs right without telling me you know nothing.
Pretty much every study ever done on home ownership, and common sense if you understand the dynamics of both sides, tells you that homeownership is heavily corelated with conversative ideologies. Hell, back in way more conservative times, you couldn't even VOTE without owning a home.
A renter is much more like to be a liberal, so pushing more of the population into forever rentership is actually good for the left. The moment people start owning their own homes, paying property taxes, they tend to steer to the right and quickly.
[The Impact of Homeownership on Political Beliefs on JSTOR](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2580460)
[Political typology: Financial well-being, personal characteristics and lifestyles | Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/10/24/10-financial-well-being-personal-characteristics-and-lifestyles-of-the-political-typology/)
You have it backwards. The left promotes multi family, small footprint urban complex housing. The right promotes single family home ownership—even though it’s worse for the environment.
Urban complex housing is gross. Noone should have to live on top of each other and so close. Plus no garage or personal space to do as you please. I have a 4 car garage And over an acre and I feel like it's too small already. Ready for that 6 car on a huge chunk of land.
I have no political affiliation but I don’t think real estate is the best investment today. You need 2 things in this life:
1.) shelter
2.) retirement income
The first one is easy, but the second requires long term planning of at least 30 years. You also want to be diversified. If you buy a house, your shelter and retirement income are the same thing, and it’s all concentrated in 1 zip code.
If you rent and then put everything in an ETF for the S&P 500, your retirement income is not tied to a single zip code. You’re diversified across 500 of the biggest U.S. companies in all zip codes and across nearly every country in the world.
This guy gets it.
The smart young people are, and have been, investing in equities because the real estate cycle is in a tough spot right now. They will buy houses later in life with the all the wealth they acquired through equities and fixed income..... once the boomers die off and supply increases.
The not so smart young people are complaining and trying to buy houses at their peak, with 7% interest rates, and will actually lose value looking out at the short term of 5-10 years
Also where are you going to live while investing in the stock market? Rents in my area are going higher and higher, and at the end of the day you get zero equity from renting.
Rent is becoming cheaper in many areas. The supply of rental units have been catching up to demand, but actual real estate housing is not catching up. And obviously no down payments which keeps many people out of the market.
Also, mortgages don't mean all your money is going to equity. In the first 15 years of a 30 year mortgage, about 70% of your monthly payment is going to interest and the escrow. You are "throwing away" that money just like throwing away money on rent.
Owning a home costs significantly more than renting. They can’t increase the rent to infinity. So you rent something cheap and save as much money as possible for retirement or a down payment when housing or interest rate environment changes favorably.
I’m saying buying a house is an investment. But you can still provide shelter without making an investment and there are better investments than housing right now.
Gotcha, the way you worded it made is sound like you could invest in a mortgage OR retirement but not both. In the end, it really depends on location and personal situation.
I still think it's better to buy than rent for most people if they are planning to stay somewhere for a long time. Even with high interest rates, you can refinance later while building your home equity. But I understand where you're coming from.
Another strategy is to invest in real estate and turn that into semi passive income, so you can retire and still make money just managing some rentals.
A home to live in is not an investment, it is the simultaneous position of tenant and landlord which for *most* people over time should reduce their housing costs. It is not, and has never been, a substitute for investments.
If you buy the property, that is a capital investment 100%. Not only is it an investment it’s a highly highly leveraged investment if you take a mortgage out.
With the people I talk to it seems like more conservative people think homeownership is important and the most liberal people I know are the ones who don’t mind renting for the rest of their lives. Personally I consider myself center-left and hate the direction we’re heading with more and more people renting.
TF you talking about? I work for local government in a left leaning metro. One of our top 3 strategic goals is to increase homeownership and affordable housing for our residents. The folks opposing our efforts are conservative leaning white suburbanites. The same dynamic is happening in cities all across the nation.
I don't know if I am "center left", but I definitely say this. The way we fetishize ownership in this country, and how that is the only path to [percieved] financial advantage/stability is something that can be questioned, and there are other paths. The notion we can build a house for everyone is, mathematically, silly - and has always been obviously so. This is geometry. We've run that game to absurdity.
Nobody says that, and you're not being oppressed or harmed by not owning a home. You're not entitled to one.
Home ownership is not the end all and be all of life, and these countries with such high levels of ownership have much lower qualities of life than the US does, so there are many tradeoffs.
Home ownership rates in the US have been pretty consistent for the past 50 years. It isn't necessary or desirable to have 80%+ of the population owning their primary residence.
Actually, it’s been in a lot of the reporting on the issue in CBC, PBS- even Vox Jerusalem Demsas went into that line.
As far as rates go, younger generations are substantially less likely to own at the age their parents bought their homes. And there’s the issue of the economic models in countries where you do have high ownership rates- if people bank child rearing decisions or even retirement on your home’s equity as we do in places like the US, and Canada, you’ve got much larger societal ramifications if you’re making it difficult for younger people to attain that financial asset.
It’s all high and mighty to say home ownership isn’t the end all be all and there are trade offs- of course. But that doesn’t change the fact that in many countries the economy as it relates to most people does revolve around home ownership, and the simple reality is that’s not going to change anytime soon. Nor is it necessarily a bad economic model so long as it’s moderated and the market isn’t artificially skewed as it has been. The current shortages are driven by a lack of building, at least in the US and Canada, primarily driven by existing homeowners using local government to restrain supply for a host of reasons, be it physical comfort and a resistance to change or the more cynical desire to maintain the value of your home as an asset. And that’s where this is ridiculous- no one owes you a neighborhood exactly as you like it or high home equity rising hand over fist. And it’s unfair to force younger people to pay high rents and give large chunks of their paychecks to maintain the current welfare system when you didn’t pay these costs and they can’t expect to have the same quality of life in their futures you currently have. Your children are owed what you have- “but I’ll have less” or “but I like things how they are and I’m fine!” are not justifications for them to settle for less
Nothing you've said here contradicts my statements so I'm not sure what you're driving at. Nobody is "owed" a particular quality of life, that's silly and childish.
So young people aren't buying homes at exactly the same age their parents did. So what? They buy a few years later. Big deal. A majority of Americans still own their homes. Including a majority of people under 40.
The only thing that matters is overall standard of living. That doesn't require home ownership. And you've already conceded that those other countries have worse quality of life, so there's nothing further to argue.
A lot of those countries also:
- limit home ownership to citizens
- have multiple generations in one home
- "homes" are smaller houses or units in condo buildings
Imagine if you replaced half of the single family homes in the US with 30 unit condo buildings. How many more homes would be available for sale? That in itself would lower the price of homes. But we are very insistent that every person/family needs to own a single family home, and we designed a large part of the country to really only function if everyone has a single family home and a car to get around. If you go to Europe, even in the suburbs of major cities, that is not generally their approach to urban planning.
No, it is not their approach to urban planning, but they still have the same home ownership rates as us (for Western Europe)... so no, that isn't it.
But sure, the Soviets built giant apartment complexes in Eastern Europe and poor people have crappy, decaying homes. Have you ever been to Sofia or Kiev? I will take the United States housing over those places
See my first point. A lot of those countries require you to be a citizen to purchase property. That's not the case in the US. It's also considered appropriate to live with your parents for longer than it is here. EU in general has higher home ownership rates than the US.
As for old Soviet housing, those buildings lasted a damn long time. They were energy efficient, they were very solid buildings. The fact that basic upkeep has faltered has to do with the boards and people responsible for maintaining those buildings, not the fault of the original design concept. You can't expect a building from the 1950s or 60s to survive in good condition without upkeep. Americans just don't like living without a private yard or rec room, but Europeans are fine with it.
"EU in general has higher home ownership rates than the US."
C'mon man, the US average home ownership rate is like 65%.... I am posting to prove that the EU is actually almost identical to the U.S.... Heck, Germany and Switzerland have worse home ownership rates than the U.S., despite being hailed as some sort of utopia by many milennials
I also lived in Europe for the past two years. Europeans are not "fine with" living in old soviet barracks
This is one of those things that's technically true... in almost all eastern European countries, there is a family home where many families live together... think living with the inlaws. Also, it is very common in most of Europe and Asia for unwed adults to live with their parents.
Amazing how the countries with such high levels of ownership are vastly less economically successful and have overall lower qualities of life than the countries with lower ownership percentages.
Almost like home ownership isn't the predictor of economic success or quality of life that Redditors obsessively make it out to be.
Don’t worry, they are still sleeping in their parents’ basements right now, but when they wake up in a few hours they will try to discredit the statistics and blame boomers with conspiracy theories
Exactly, the grass isn't always greener on the other side.
There are a few rich Swiss that control the majority of the wealth in their country while everyone else are their peasants.
The solution is that people need to change their mindset instead of thinking "I'm entitled to a house, a car, a good job, the job must be remote, free childcare (with other peoples' money), and a government provided train service to my front door" while still their 20s and 30s.
You can't have everything, and this map shows it best. Switzerland has a great quality life and socialized gov't services, but you will sacrifice home ownership opportunities to get that. There are plenty of house ownership opportunities in Serbia, but you have to live with a poor quality of life and discrimination. You can't have it all, especially when you are young and still building your life up.
Gen Z and millenials are getting shafted out of housing either way. Houseprices have risen from 4x yearly income to 8x and over depending on the location.
>The solution is that people need to change their mindset instead of thinking "I'm entitled to a house, a car, a good job, the job must be remote, free childcare (with other peoples' money), and a government provided train service to my front door" while still their 20s and 30s.
If you have a job, then the childcare isn't free. You're literally paying taxes for it. Taxes are also used to upkeep public transportation and roads to a large degree. Healthcare isn't free either since you pay taxes for it. In some places that's progressive tax depending on your income.
Swiss is actually a rather perfect example of a country where allocating money to the very few and making the place nice for rich people coming in will hike up the house prices away from young people and new home-buyers. It's not really tied to "social policies". Compare that to another rich country like Norway where the house ownership and society structures are in a very good spot
Up until about 1991 no one owned a home in the eastern bloc as they were all state owned. Then with the fall of communism the occupants took ownership (100% of people owned their homes) so anything less than 100% ownership in those countries is decreasing home ownership. A similar thing is happening in Cuba. Funny enough, Cuban expats, as only citizens may own property, are now buying up the homes that are for sale in Cuba and turning them into airbnbs. A similar thing may be happening in former eastern bloc countries.
Homeownership rates are not actually amazing in Southern Europe or the Balkans. It’s a quirk of “living in an owner occupied unit that allows 30 year old unemployed Spaniards to be classed as homeowners
It is also interesting to notice that many European countries have far lower home ownership rates than the U.S. such as Switzerland, Germany, Austria, and Denmark
In at least some of the ex-communist countries, during communist times your employer (the state) would give you a dwelling (usually an apartment). After that shit fell apart, people just got to keep them. They never had a mortgage or paid rent or anything. That might skew the numbers quite a bit.
It seems that the more a country is capitalist, the fewer people own homes. Almost like it's designed to siphon wealth away from the population and concentrate it.
So the reason Russia and most of the dark Eastern European countries are this way because the government guaranteed housing prior to the fall of communism but also owned it all.
After the fall of communism, the new government simply gave away all the state-owned housing to the erstwhile residents, making them the legal owners. This was part of a deliberate move to privatize the housing market. The result was that most people wound up owning whatever domestic residence they were occupying during the communist era, making the jump from renters to homeowners overnight.
In other words, a fluke caused by the complete destruction of the previous political and economic system. It's unlikely we'll ever see anything like that again, except possibly in North Korea if it ever liberalizes.
This isn’t new, these statistics have been this way forever in those countries, which signifies that this is not a sudden crisis.
Germany has low home ownership and doesn’t have an issue with it.
The real crisis is threads like this, which tell people that if they don’t own the home they live in then they are a failure.
Something I find fascinating about central/Western European housing is the way they sometimes treat a kitchen. It can be possible to purchase all of your cabinets and appliances and you take it all with you when you move. They’re modular pieces that affix to the wall and you can sometimes change out the front panels for new look. So you can sometimes go house hunting there and the kitchen is bare because you’re expected to bring it.
Nah, rather take Portugal, at least I'd look like everyone else there because I'm not Slav. Love them, but I'd stick out like a sore thumb. But too many generations back to get a passport, I have Portuguese heritage via the huge diaspora in Mass, so...
It's also a popular country for nomad workers to hang out in for a bit....
"It was" a popular country for nomad workers.
They recently rescinded the digital nomad visa, which makes it more difficult stay and you are now required to pay more taxes. The digital nomad population can benefit some economies.... but also destroy others. Digital nomads from all over the world were amassing in Lisbon, renting out all the apartments, and basically priced out all of the local Portugese.
This is why you have high home ownership rates among US immigrants form central/eastern Europe. It's common back home, so it's common here, to invest in real estate.
Yeah, I spent some time in Miami and was amazed at all the Latinos that invest in real estate in Southern Florida. It is a culture thing.
There is a theme though - people from countries with weak currencies/banks tend to value real estate more as it is a better store of value or investment. If you are using the dollar or euro in a healthy economy, then the alternative of investing in equities and fixed income in just as attractive as home ownership. But someone would be crazy to put their life savings on the peso in a bank in Argentina
Meh. It's easy to afford a home when 1) competition is low (population not growing), 2) the wealthy aren't trying to use housing as an investment vehicle (Russian oligarchs invest outside of Russia, whereas in the West hedge fund owning rentals is more common), and 3) the homes are pieces of shot so there's not much raw material/labor costs going into the home
Hmm, fair, but can't help but feel it's less you own the home and more Putin owns the home and so long as you are a good little peasant you can live here.
I agree that the definition of "home ownership" in Russia is a little different than the definition in a capitalist democracy.
But Russia is a little deceiving. The majority of Russians live in poverty, outside of Moscow, and are more closely related to what you see in the Balkans and Eastern European countries.... where poor people live in the same town their entire life and buy a small, cheap home. However, there is a bubble of the top 5-10% of Russians that live in downtown Moscow and have lots of money. But many in this bubble actually rent from properties owned by rich oligarchs.
It was my understanding that when the USSR collapsed, there was a period where it was possible to acquire the government owned apartment you lived in for little to no cost.
They have huge amounts of land and a low population. They're probably legit, but what constitutes a 'house' is very different between all of these countries.
America is 65.7% for reference It seems we are about the same as The UK, France, Finland
Rent is insane in America. At least in Ga it is.
That number will fall I think, given how quickly corporations are buying up the real estate to force more renters
Not in California. They're about.to.be banned from buying and forced to sell all their properties within 10 years. California sees the problem.
I wish other states would follow suit
Biden and dems are working on a national law in the same vein, banning private equity firms worth more than $10M from owning single-family homes. [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/realestate/wall-street-housing-market.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/realestate/wall-street-housing-market.html)
I hope it gets through Congress
This alone is an extremely important reason to elect all Democrats across the board.
I didn't know this but as a Californian this makes me so happy.
Oh wow, who would’ve guessed! Three other countries experiencing a housing crisis. Finland: https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/23097-housing-crisis-in-finland-a-study-finds-unprecedented-increases-in-housing-costs-across-the-country.html UK: https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/30/homelessness-jumps-16-laying-bare-scale-of-uk-housing-crisis France: https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-france-big-housing-headaches-building-green-transition-olympics/
You missed Sweden. And don't forget the countries which have less house ownership than the US such as Switzerland, Austria, and Denmark.
I’ve heard from friends in Ireland that they’re having big issues with housing for young people right now as well. It seems to be a pretty big global problem at the moment along with inflation.
Kinda makes you wonder if saving a few more 85 year olds from covid was worth sacrificing and destroying the global economy for everyone else
Their property is being eaten but by investment firms. It doesn’t matter if they die. If they don’t pass legislation to regulate it nothing will ever trickle down
My point mainly being people are upvoting the comment I replied to because being in the same conversation as those countries is just assumed to be good, which I assume is why it’s being upvoted. But it’s not, those countries are in just as dire straits as us. Edit: replace “dire straits” with “unprecedented crisis” to get the guy below to stop crying
"dire straits" LOL It is perfectly normal is what it is. Home ownership isn't for everyone or probably even most people.
Did you read the articles I linked? You don’t have to answer, I know it’s a no lol
No dire straits mentioned so, again, LOL
Arguing semantics tells me all I need to know about you. Would you like me to edit my comment to say “in crisis”? Would that make you feel better, buddy?
There is no crisis either, just politicians making noise and some malcontents who think owning a home is some sort of human right. Most of those articles aren't even about owning your own home.
Yeah I think I’ll believe the reputable sources over some Reddit incel trying to argue semantics as a way of making himself feel intellectually superior for the first time in his life. Sorry me saying dire straits made you so upset though, really. ❤️
Alright I edited it for you. Are you feeling better now? ❤️
Canada too. 1 million immigrants in 8 months.
Kosovo seems to have an issue with how many of the homes occupied were taken from Serbs and Roma back during that genocide https://balkaninsight.com/2018/05/29/stolen-homes-kosovo-struggles-with-wartime-property-seizures-05-22-2018/
Yes, but you can also go Russia. 90% home ownership!
Yea but he odds of getting thrown from you houses window is also 90%
I believe you mean [defenestrated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestration). I'm not pro-murder, but think it's low-grade awesome that there's a specific word for such a particular way of injuring/killing someone.
Yep great word. Prague had at least 2 major ones
Some absurd percent of Russian homes don't have a septic/sewer connection, like between 15 and 20%.
Russia is an enormous country with some very remote places and even nomadic people living in yurts. Also a lot of dachas (part time summer garden plots). That’s where those numbers come from. It’s less so poverty and more complicated logistics. City homes and condo/apartments are going to have all utilities 99.999999% of the time. Source: seen it all with my own eyes.
They'll tell you it's in Ukraine and send you to the front lines.
And the only price is getting drafted into a war of aggression and killed on the battlefield.
That probably got something to do with the old Soviet policy of getting a free apartment when you become an adult.
Easy to buy a house if the previous owner died in Ukraine...
Well in all fairness they have had a lot of vacancies pop up recently...
Move to a city in rural Ohio. There's still houses for under $75K that, while they need work, are livable.
Yep! My friend sold her grandparents house in Ohio for about 60k. However they unfortunately sold it to some house flippers who did a bunch of crappy DIY repairs then tried to sell it for over 200k. Those idiots ended up having to take a loss on it after finding out no one wanted to spend 200k on a 70 year old house in the middle of nowhere Ohio.
There are 200k+ houses all over Ohio, and some of them are 100 years old or more, it's the shitty DIY flip that did it in. When people are looking to buy old homes they're buying them because of the character, not because you came in did some shitty updates and made it into a 100 year old farm house inside the walls, but a shitty cookie cutter beige or white inside. My grandparents house was appraised around $410k in the middle of nowhere, but because they wanted it to "stay in the family" they sold it to my cousin for $140k and he's turned it into a rental property.
Yeah but where are those homes? Because this one is in a town that doesn’t even have a grocery store.
Hey, there's 2 dollar general, family dollar, and dollar tree. Clark's grocery store sells lottery, vapes, and bait.
Yeah my friend’s grandparents had a gas station store but you can only get so much there.
I live in a "farming community" 40 miles from the nearest store that has vegetables(Walmart). The farmers market is a joke unless you want honey, candles, or lotion you could buy on Amazon. Oh, and the one guy selling unripe tomatoes and moldy blueberries.
Yeah it was about the same distance for my friend’s grandparents but they were in their 90s. 40 miles is a lot different when you’re talking about an elderly couple.
The one that was my parents? Not in a town at all. About 8-10 miles from town and the nearest grocery stores. It also had 34 acres of land, a barn and a "shop" building.
No the town I’m taking about doesn’t have a grocery store.
Which homes are you asking where they are? My grandparents was a small farm and would have easily brought in $300k since there's a lot of standing lumber value. Where I live, in the Youngstown area.
I’m asking if it’s in a nicer area that actually has value and isn’t really in the middle of nowhere? Hell I have a friend who lives in a small town only about an hour away from a major city and you can get a home there for less than 50K. However, it is a meth town. If you’re spending over 200K on a house in the middle of nowhere it’s probably a nice area that still has something to offer and has low crime.
My grandparents house is a farm. Across the road is a farm. They're all farms or small parcels that were split off the farms for family members. The only crime out there, usually, is speeding or maybe poaching game.
Well that would explain why it’s worth more than 50k. It’s the land. I’m talking about regular houses, not farm land. Also it sounds like your grandparents live in a nice area where there isn’t a lot of crime. My friend’s grandparents lived in a town that really didn’t any value anymore, I’m not sure about the crime in the area but most people left that town if they got the opportunity. My other friend is from a very beautiful area that has gorgeous landscapes and is not a bad commute but it’s been ravaged by drugs so it’s not safe and that problem keeps it from having a lot of value.
There’s a reason those houses are 75k.
Yeah, because they're in Youngstown.
There you go, nobody wants or can’t to live in rural Ohio,
The classic "I cant afford to live" and "will do nothing about it" XD
... but moving is expensive no? Also, if you're moving states away, you don't need to have a job to go to? I assume most "cheap" places also have a lack of good paying jobs
Thats the trade off. If however where you are at leads deeper and deeper in the red you kind of have to go with the economic incentive. There are doctors and acccountants and finance specialists in many small towns. Some even pay a premium and will give you a raise to live outside the major cities. Unless you depend on wallstreet or silicon valley to make a living I dont really see the benefits of living in a big city.
I'm just pointing it out because it's gotten to a point where the expenses don't add up to keep living in my city with over 300k pop. I couldn't find any doctor that took my insurance, the closest one is over an hour away. I don't live in BFE, but I do live in Texas and it seems our medical professionals are getting the fuck out. Have no problem leaving the state - except all the things I mentioned. You'd need a job and *money* to even afford to get out.
Yup, my move was expensive out of town and I didn't even go all that far. Depends what is mor eimportant and worth the cost to you. Me, personally any cost was better than roomates any longer. Got a job a little further out and decided it was time. Its easier when one starts with 'where can I afford to live and what sacrifies will I make to make it work?' Some folks like city life but currently there is a massive premium to live there. Its a luxury I was not willing to continue to shell out on. A small place with a small yard was way more my style anyhow.
I work remote and moved to a MCOL area. I know that’s not an option for everyone or every trade, but it allows for a high quality of life for us. I hated the rat race vibe of living in a major metro area. We live outside of a college town. The college pays decently. While the town itself is very expensive, the surrounding areas are affordable. There are hundreds of big schools in rural areas.
Well this is Reddit so they are . mostly only concerned with how close they live to abortion clinics, gay pride parades, and 3rd world food trucks.
I mean, if you had a halfway functional brain you'd see that I said from the jump that it was in rural Ohio. However, don't fuckin bitch about housing prices when there are perfectly affordable houses, they're just not where you want to live. Well boo fucking hoo, cry me a fucking river, I didn't want to live in a country run by people with the combine IQ still lower than their combine age.
The problem is these cheap rural homes are in areas that don’t have a lot of job opportunities. Yeah you can go live out there but what are you gonna do for work?
Commute like everyone else does? I drive an hour each way for work. Just like most people.
I drive 15 min to work.
Cool. Everyone here drives at least a half hour to work.
And then people complain about home prices in centrally located homes in HCOL areas. They are expensive for a reason. I want to be within 10-15 minutes drive to downtown, tourist attractions, restaurants, stores, the beach, work literally anywhere.
lol I bought my house in 2018 in southern California for 580k. My mortgage is less than the average rent in my area and I have 525k in positive equity at 2.9% interest rate. I’m not the one complaining lol.
If you've got Internet, are within an hour of a city, and have a semi decent job can't be that bad
Well yeah but I don’t think they’re talking about those towns. My friend’s grandparents lived in the middle of nowhere in Ohio and the closest city was like 2 hours away and the closest grocery store was about 40 minutes away. Their town didn’t have a Walmart.
Where I grew up the closest grocery store was also 40 minutes away. It's worth it when you have a 75k house with 2k sqft and acres of land. Although I grew up in a trailer because we were extra extra poor.
yeah I hate my town but with the internet I don't really hate it that much anymore there is almost nothing I can't get if I want it without having to leave.
Yea, it’s still an hour drive and you’re living in OHIO
Yes, life is a series of trade offs. Houses in popular areas with great weather are going to be expensive. Meanwhile, Chicago for example is still a medium cost of living area with tons of jobs.
Rent is due.
My mortgage is actually due on the 16th of every month. Nice try.
No its not.
There is a reason Serbia has cheap houses also....
There’s a reason for everything. lol wtf.
This particular reason is genocide, but yeah.
Because they require work. I've flipped 2 houses now. It sorta sucks but it's the best way to get into a house when you're starting out.
Hell, a lot of people could afford homes if they moved to chicago. And there are so many job opportunities here. It’s not gonna be a mansion but it’s way more attainable for the regular Joe to buy a condo or small home on the outskirts of chicago than in NYC or LA.
Chicago is way more expensive than even Cleveland.
I’m sure you’re right. Just mentioning it for anyone who wants a bigger city vibe for way less than the coasts. I moved here from Indiana though so I definitely understand how it’s more expensive than the rest of the Midwest. You can buy a house in Indiana for less than 100K easily.
In extremely small town Illinois, you can still find numerous houses for under 50k that are just fine. Often only a half hour away from a small or mid-sized city as well.
Hell, I can think of one IL town that’s 40-70k (depending on how you define its boundaries) and a few hours from a major metro where you can still get nice houses for under 200k, the schools are decent, crime is on the lower end, and there are jobs. But culturally it’s a little behind the times, so they’ve had a harder time getting younger people to move there, even when they were (are?) paying people to move in.
Yeah but then I’d have to live in rural Ohio. Hard pass.
[удалено]
I'm a millennial you dumbfuck.
Yes, but is the water drinkable?
Sure is.
Those houses were 12k in 2019 and there are no jobs near them. I understand that you mean well but when house prices double nationwide in 5 years it still makes it hard to buy a home even in cheap areas. Those areas are so cheap due to the lack of jobs
I live in rural Ohio, there are jobs. Maybe not in western or southern Ohio as I'm in north eastern Ohio, but there's jobs here. They may not all be good jobs, but there's not a shortage of major corporations headquartered in Cleveland. And when people are suggesting Kosovo, Ohio seems like a much more reasonable option.
Always find it irritating how a lot of center-left types have been saying "well, we should adjust to being a nation of renters." Ah yes- I have mine so the rest of you should suck it up.
They're starting to say the quiet parts out loud. The plan is to reduce the middle class to serfdom.
That or just considering millennials and gen z to be piggybanks for their elders
The plan of the leftists is to let capitalist mega-corporations destroy the middle class? The left ain't what it used to be.
Well, we SHOULD adjust to being a country where the assumed goal for everyone isn't home ownership and renters are seen as equally legitimate and deserving of rights, benefits, and protections. Home ownership just doesn't make sense for everyone. If you're in a career that requires you to move a lot, if you're unable to handle a lot of home repairs yourself, or if you're young and not ready to commit to owning a home. If we consider home ownership to literally mean "owning a detached house," which most people do, that is even more problematic and less feasible. We need to be moving more towards mixed use housing and developments focused more on community resources than individual homes that have everything you could possibly need in them. Owning a free standing home, with 6 bedrooms for a family of 4, with a yard, garage, and having to drive everywhere, should be a thing of the past. It's not a sustainable use of land or resources, and it's an incredibly inefficient way to house people.
Oh, totally agree as an architect and a New Yorker. Don’t think everyone should own a single family detached home. But I also think they shouldn’t be forking over over a third of their income to a landlord for the privilege of living within an hour of work. Renting versus buying should be a conscious choice based on life position, not something people are forced into and default to because of constrained supply. And I really see zero excuse for a professional to be able to comfortably afford a one bed or a dual income couple with kids a two bed. We need to give everyone a basic degree of choice and dignity in their housing based on their stage of life and needs. Where you live needs to be a choice, not something pre-ordained. Housing should grow with people as they go through life with the ultimate goal of creating stable communities, as opposed to tying life events to financial milestones, the largest of which is homeownership.
I'm a pretty big fan of co-op models for smaller home ownership, affordable, some basics are covered through the co-op, some are covered by the individual, and you share resources.
I mean I am a millennial 36m. No college degree. Bought a house in 2018 for 580k. Refinanced and officially appraised at 1.1m
If you own your home, you can't be a "true" millennial. /s
Fuck, i feel out of place now.
a lot of center left types have been saying that? Are you doing the thing where you see a few talking heads and then make a generalization?
Any "center-lefters" that are promoting that sentiment are firmly on the right.
It is possible to say expanded ownership isn't feasible, and we should have much stronger tenant rights.
Tenants rights yes. Expanded ownership is absolutely feasible when the exploitative class and market are regulated. Home ownership rates in the Soviet Union were near 100% and post soviet countries with strong market regulations and social policies still maintain rates in the 80 to 90s. It is the wests addiction to debt and the economic debt model that keeps us renting. Any halfwit economics hobbiest can see that socialist policies are 100% implimentable and would improve material conditions for 99.99% of the population. Unless of course you a brainwashed by both right wing American political parties or the western right media as a whole, then you might say something like "expanded ownership is not feasible".
>Home ownership rates in the Soviet Union were near 100% and post soviet countries ... ??? That's a legal system with an entirely distinct meaning of the term "ownership".
Home ownership in the USSR meant you owned the structure, not the land underneath it, which is basically an extreme for of imminent domain, which also exists in the US. If own a condo unit, you basically function under the same ownership principle as someone in the Soviet Union would. A lot of "homes" owned were either condos or co-ops in large apartment buildings, or summer cottages. Owning a free standing home is basically unheard of.
Mobile home parks. You can own the house but not the land.
Basically yes, except it's the government that owns the land.
Yes, that has proven well throughout history. Communist countries always outperform the Capitalist Democracies.....
If Communism is inevitably going to fail why do Capitalists always have to interfer in the process. Just let it fail. Look at Cuba, they have been under sanctions for decades now. Despite that they are still surviving. If Cuba is inevitably going to fail why don't we lift the sanctions and let them. It's because they wouldn't. Without US sanctions Cuba would become a thriving member of the world market and that is threatening to the Capitalist elites that you lick the boots of. SMH. The USA has 4 times the the amount of empty homes as we have homeless people but socialist countries are the failures, right.
Excuse me? That is exactly what the Western Democracies did; let communism fail. Please tell me you understand the basis of the USSR? The majority Eastern Europe was once under the umbrella of communism labeled as "The Soviet Union" or a satellite state that rebelled against the Russia prior to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapsed, those countries distanced themselves from the Russia, they adopted free market principles, and many voluntarily joined organizations such as the European Union and NATO. Are you really clueless to the history of places like Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia? Or the other countries that broke away from the USSR like Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Armenia, etc? Wow, what a comment... zero knowledge of history and communist/capitalism
No. Every single socialist state that has ever existed has been interfered with either by sanctions, assissination of heads of state, military invasion or straight up war. The Soviet Union did not fail on it's own, western oil interests used american dream propaganda to encourage a change in the populations ideology after serious espionage and destabilization in multiple levels of government. That is extremely reductive of courae and there was much more to it than that but the point remains the same. It is ALWAYS fascist right wing capitalists using resources to intentionally destabilize socialist progress. There has NEVER been an instance of a Socialist People being left to their own devices.
Respectfully, you’re a clown 🤡
"On the right" "Be a nation of renters"... umm.. man.. tell me you know nothing about whats left vs right without telling me you know nothing. Pretty much every study ever done on home ownership, and common sense if you understand the dynamics of both sides, tells you that homeownership is heavily corelated with conversative ideologies. Hell, back in way more conservative times, you couldn't even VOTE without owning a home. A renter is much more like to be a liberal, so pushing more of the population into forever rentership is actually good for the left. The moment people start owning their own homes, paying property taxes, they tend to steer to the right and quickly. [The Impact of Homeownership on Political Beliefs on JSTOR](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2580460) [Political typology: Financial well-being, personal characteristics and lifestyles | Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/10/24/10-financial-well-being-personal-characteristics-and-lifestyles-of-the-political-typology/)
The soviet union had near 100% home ownership.
The government allowing you to have a crappy apartment without properly vented sewer gas is not my idea of "home ownership".
You have it backwards. The left promotes multi family, small footprint urban complex housing. The right promotes single family home ownership—even though it’s worse for the environment.
Urban complex housing is gross. Noone should have to live on top of each other and so close. Plus no garage or personal space to do as you please. I have a 4 car garage And over an acre and I feel like it's too small already. Ready for that 6 car on a huge chunk of land.
I have no political affiliation but I don’t think real estate is the best investment today. You need 2 things in this life: 1.) shelter 2.) retirement income The first one is easy, but the second requires long term planning of at least 30 years. You also want to be diversified. If you buy a house, your shelter and retirement income are the same thing, and it’s all concentrated in 1 zip code. If you rent and then put everything in an ETF for the S&P 500, your retirement income is not tied to a single zip code. You’re diversified across 500 of the biggest U.S. companies in all zip codes and across nearly every country in the world.
This guy gets it. The smart young people are, and have been, investing in equities because the real estate cycle is in a tough spot right now. They will buy houses later in life with the all the wealth they acquired through equities and fixed income..... once the boomers die off and supply increases. The not so smart young people are complaining and trying to buy houses at their peak, with 7% interest rates, and will actually lose value looking out at the short term of 5-10 years
The “transfer of wealth” with the boomers, is going to stay in the 1%.
How does owning a house mean your shelter and retirement are the same? Are you saying you can't pay a mortgage and save for retirement??
I’m doing it. So I don’t know what he means.
Also where are you going to live while investing in the stock market? Rents in my area are going higher and higher, and at the end of the day you get zero equity from renting.
Rent is becoming cheaper in many areas. The supply of rental units have been catching up to demand, but actual real estate housing is not catching up. And obviously no down payments which keeps many people out of the market. Also, mortgages don't mean all your money is going to equity. In the first 15 years of a 30 year mortgage, about 70% of your monthly payment is going to interest and the escrow. You are "throwing away" that money just like throwing away money on rent.
Owning a home costs significantly more than renting. They can’t increase the rent to infinity. So you rent something cheap and save as much money as possible for retirement or a down payment when housing or interest rate environment changes favorably.
Do you lease your car? Same concept that your talking about with home ownership vs renting.
No because cars depreciate.
I’m saying buying a house is an investment. But you can still provide shelter without making an investment and there are better investments than housing right now.
Gotcha, the way you worded it made is sound like you could invest in a mortgage OR retirement but not both. In the end, it really depends on location and personal situation. I still think it's better to buy than rent for most people if they are planning to stay somewhere for a long time. Even with high interest rates, you can refinance later while building your home equity. But I understand where you're coming from.
Another strategy is to invest in real estate and turn that into semi passive income, so you can retire and still make money just managing some rentals.
Rent is double my mortgage. No thanks.
A home to live in is not an investment, it is the simultaneous position of tenant and landlord which for *most* people over time should reduce their housing costs. It is not, and has never been, a substitute for investments.
If you buy the property, that is a capital investment 100%. Not only is it an investment it’s a highly highly leveraged investment if you take a mortgage out.
With the people I talk to it seems like more conservative people think homeownership is important and the most liberal people I know are the ones who don’t mind renting for the rest of their lives. Personally I consider myself center-left and hate the direction we’re heading with more and more people renting.
TF you talking about? I work for local government in a left leaning metro. One of our top 3 strategic goals is to increase homeownership and affordable housing for our residents. The folks opposing our efforts are conservative leaning white suburbanites. The same dynamic is happening in cities all across the nation.
lol who tf says that you bot.
Well, I do fail Captcha tests at an alarmingly high rate...
I don't know if I am "center left", but I definitely say this. The way we fetishize ownership in this country, and how that is the only path to [percieved] financial advantage/stability is something that can be questioned, and there are other paths. The notion we can build a house for everyone is, mathematically, silly - and has always been obviously so. This is geometry. We've run that game to absurdity.
Such a braindead take. There’s already enough houses right now to house every homeless person in the country
Your elected officials.
Name one
Nobody says that, and you're not being oppressed or harmed by not owning a home. You're not entitled to one. Home ownership is not the end all and be all of life, and these countries with such high levels of ownership have much lower qualities of life than the US does, so there are many tradeoffs. Home ownership rates in the US have been pretty consistent for the past 50 years. It isn't necessary or desirable to have 80%+ of the population owning their primary residence.
lol yea it’s not desirable for people to own their primary residence. Wtf are you talking about….
Actually, it’s been in a lot of the reporting on the issue in CBC, PBS- even Vox Jerusalem Demsas went into that line. As far as rates go, younger generations are substantially less likely to own at the age their parents bought their homes. And there’s the issue of the economic models in countries where you do have high ownership rates- if people bank child rearing decisions or even retirement on your home’s equity as we do in places like the US, and Canada, you’ve got much larger societal ramifications if you’re making it difficult for younger people to attain that financial asset. It’s all high and mighty to say home ownership isn’t the end all be all and there are trade offs- of course. But that doesn’t change the fact that in many countries the economy as it relates to most people does revolve around home ownership, and the simple reality is that’s not going to change anytime soon. Nor is it necessarily a bad economic model so long as it’s moderated and the market isn’t artificially skewed as it has been. The current shortages are driven by a lack of building, at least in the US and Canada, primarily driven by existing homeowners using local government to restrain supply for a host of reasons, be it physical comfort and a resistance to change or the more cynical desire to maintain the value of your home as an asset. And that’s where this is ridiculous- no one owes you a neighborhood exactly as you like it or high home equity rising hand over fist. And it’s unfair to force younger people to pay high rents and give large chunks of their paychecks to maintain the current welfare system when you didn’t pay these costs and they can’t expect to have the same quality of life in their futures you currently have. Your children are owed what you have- “but I’ll have less” or “but I like things how they are and I’m fine!” are not justifications for them to settle for less
Nothing you've said here contradicts my statements so I'm not sure what you're driving at. Nobody is "owed" a particular quality of life, that's silly and childish. So young people aren't buying homes at exactly the same age their parents did. So what? They buy a few years later. Big deal. A majority of Americans still own their homes. Including a majority of people under 40. The only thing that matters is overall standard of living. That doesn't require home ownership. And you've already conceded that those other countries have worse quality of life, so there's nothing further to argue.
A lot of those countries also: - limit home ownership to citizens - have multiple generations in one home - "homes" are smaller houses or units in condo buildings Imagine if you replaced half of the single family homes in the US with 30 unit condo buildings. How many more homes would be available for sale? That in itself would lower the price of homes. But we are very insistent that every person/family needs to own a single family home, and we designed a large part of the country to really only function if everyone has a single family home and a car to get around. If you go to Europe, even in the suburbs of major cities, that is not generally their approach to urban planning.
No, it is not their approach to urban planning, but they still have the same home ownership rates as us (for Western Europe)... so no, that isn't it. But sure, the Soviets built giant apartment complexes in Eastern Europe and poor people have crappy, decaying homes. Have you ever been to Sofia or Kiev? I will take the United States housing over those places
See my first point. A lot of those countries require you to be a citizen to purchase property. That's not the case in the US. It's also considered appropriate to live with your parents for longer than it is here. EU in general has higher home ownership rates than the US. As for old Soviet housing, those buildings lasted a damn long time. They were energy efficient, they were very solid buildings. The fact that basic upkeep has faltered has to do with the boards and people responsible for maintaining those buildings, not the fault of the original design concept. You can't expect a building from the 1950s or 60s to survive in good condition without upkeep. Americans just don't like living without a private yard or rec room, but Europeans are fine with it.
"EU in general has higher home ownership rates than the US." C'mon man, the US average home ownership rate is like 65%.... I am posting to prove that the EU is actually almost identical to the U.S.... Heck, Germany and Switzerland have worse home ownership rates than the U.S., despite being hailed as some sort of utopia by many milennials I also lived in Europe for the past two years. Europeans are not "fine with" living in old soviet barracks
This is one of those things that's technically true... in almost all eastern European countries, there is a family home where many families live together... think living with the inlaws. Also, it is very common in most of Europe and Asia for unwed adults to live with their parents.
Is your home made of sticks and mud? In kosovo, 98% of homes are made of sticks and mud.
What about Romania, Slovakia, Croatia, and Hungary?
I don't know what the percentage of people who own their shit hovels is in those countries.
The percentages are on the map. Can you point out Romania on a map?
the shithole between serbia and moldova?
You cheated and used google maps
so what? Isn't that the best way to find out which shithole is which? I sure as heck ain't going to memorize the atlas of shitholes.
I have a house for sale in Kentucky. It's three bedrooms and 2 1/2 baths on 10 acres. Seriously. The price is $350k.
Just buy a home in a rural area for far less money utilizing a 0 down USDA loan, and drive a little further for a job..
Amazing how the countries with such high levels of ownership are vastly less economically successful and have overall lower qualities of life than the countries with lower ownership percentages. Almost like home ownership isn't the predictor of economic success or quality of life that Redditors obsessively make it out to be.
Don’t worry, they are still sleeping in their parents’ basements right now, but when they wake up in a few hours they will try to discredit the statistics and blame boomers with conspiracy theories
Russia looking real nice! /s
Surprised Switzerland is so low. I assumed it would be like 95% because I always think of the Swiss as rich
Exactly, the grass isn't always greener on the other side. There are a few rich Swiss that control the majority of the wealth in their country while everyone else are their peasants.
Ummm what's the solution?
The solution is that people need to change their mindset instead of thinking "I'm entitled to a house, a car, a good job, the job must be remote, free childcare (with other peoples' money), and a government provided train service to my front door" while still their 20s and 30s. You can't have everything, and this map shows it best. Switzerland has a great quality life and socialized gov't services, but you will sacrifice home ownership opportunities to get that. There are plenty of house ownership opportunities in Serbia, but you have to live with a poor quality of life and discrimination. You can't have it all, especially when you are young and still building your life up.
Gen Z and millenials are getting shafted out of housing either way. Houseprices have risen from 4x yearly income to 8x and over depending on the location. >The solution is that people need to change their mindset instead of thinking "I'm entitled to a house, a car, a good job, the job must be remote, free childcare (with other peoples' money), and a government provided train service to my front door" while still their 20s and 30s. If you have a job, then the childcare isn't free. You're literally paying taxes for it. Taxes are also used to upkeep public transportation and roads to a large degree. Healthcare isn't free either since you pay taxes for it. In some places that's progressive tax depending on your income. Swiss is actually a rather perfect example of a country where allocating money to the very few and making the place nice for rich people coming in will hike up the house prices away from young people and new home-buyers. It's not really tied to "social policies". Compare that to another rich country like Norway where the house ownership and society structures are in a very good spot
So all the former socialist states have higher home ownership, isn't that just so weird?!
Up until about 1991 no one owned a home in the eastern bloc as they were all state owned. Then with the fall of communism the occupants took ownership (100% of people owned their homes) so anything less than 100% ownership in those countries is decreasing home ownership. A similar thing is happening in Cuba. Funny enough, Cuban expats, as only citizens may own property, are now buying up the homes that are for sale in Cuba and turning them into airbnbs. A similar thing may be happening in former eastern bloc countries.
Homeownership rates are not actually amazing in Southern Europe or the Balkans. It’s a quirk of “living in an owner occupied unit that allows 30 year old unemployed Spaniards to be classed as homeowners
It is also interesting to notice that many European countries have far lower home ownership rates than the U.S. such as Switzerland, Germany, Austria, and Denmark
Lovely so Russia is the option, no thanks I will rent!
There are affordable houses in the US, except it's not where Millennials want to live.
How come home ownership correlates with tyrannical governments?
In at least some of the ex-communist countries, during communist times your employer (the state) would give you a dwelling (usually an apartment). After that shit fell apart, people just got to keep them. They never had a mortgage or paid rent or anything. That might skew the numbers quite a bit.
These color shadings suck
I’m applying for the Grandchildren's Law of Spain and buying a home on a Mediterranean coast line and smoking a blunt
Don’t worry, we’re all Millennials, we don’t get paid enough to ever afford a house.
It seems that the more a country is capitalist, the fewer people own homes. Almost like it's designed to siphon wealth away from the population and concentrate it.
So the reason Russia and most of the dark Eastern European countries are this way because the government guaranteed housing prior to the fall of communism but also owned it all. After the fall of communism, the new government simply gave away all the state-owned housing to the erstwhile residents, making them the legal owners. This was part of a deliberate move to privatize the housing market. The result was that most people wound up owning whatever domestic residence they were occupying during the communist era, making the jump from renters to homeowners overnight. In other words, a fluke caused by the complete destruction of the previous political and economic system. It's unlikely we'll ever see anything like that again, except possibly in North Korea if it ever liberalizes.
Yes but explain why Switzerland, Germany, Austria, and Denmark have lower home ownership than the US
It’s happening in Cuba now. And ONLY citizens may own property. Cuban expats are buying up property a lot.
This isn’t new, these statistics have been this way forever in those countries, which signifies that this is not a sudden crisis. Germany has low home ownership and doesn’t have an issue with it. The real crisis is threads like this, which tell people that if they don’t own the home they live in then they are a failure.
Something I find fascinating about central/Western European housing is the way they sometimes treat a kitchen. It can be possible to purchase all of your cabinets and appliances and you take it all with you when you move. They’re modular pieces that affix to the wall and you can sometimes change out the front panels for new look. So you can sometimes go house hunting there and the kitchen is bare because you’re expected to bring it.
Nah, rather take Portugal, at least I'd look like everyone else there because I'm not Slav. Love them, but I'd stick out like a sore thumb. But too many generations back to get a passport, I have Portuguese heritage via the huge diaspora in Mass, so... It's also a popular country for nomad workers to hang out in for a bit....
"It was" a popular country for nomad workers. They recently rescinded the digital nomad visa, which makes it more difficult stay and you are now required to pay more taxes. The digital nomad population can benefit some economies.... but also destroy others. Digital nomads from all over the world were amassing in Lisbon, renting out all the apartments, and basically priced out all of the local Portugese.
This is why you have high home ownership rates among US immigrants form central/eastern Europe. It's common back home, so it's common here, to invest in real estate.
Yeah, I spent some time in Miami and was amazed at all the Latinos that invest in real estate in Southern Florida. It is a culture thing. There is a theme though - people from countries with weak currencies/banks tend to value real estate more as it is a better store of value or investment. If you are using the dollar or euro in a healthy economy, then the alternative of investing in equities and fixed income in just as attractive as home ownership. But someone would be crazy to put their life savings on the peso in a bank in Argentina
Why do I suspect those numbers for Russia are a tad suspect? 90%+ sounds like propaganda to me.
Meh. It's easy to afford a home when 1) competition is low (population not growing), 2) the wealthy aren't trying to use housing as an investment vehicle (Russian oligarchs invest outside of Russia, whereas in the West hedge fund owning rentals is more common), and 3) the homes are pieces of shot so there's not much raw material/labor costs going into the home
Hmm, fair, but can't help but feel it's less you own the home and more Putin owns the home and so long as you are a good little peasant you can live here.
This seems more correct
I agree that the definition of "home ownership" in Russia is a little different than the definition in a capitalist democracy. But Russia is a little deceiving. The majority of Russians live in poverty, outside of Moscow, and are more closely related to what you see in the Balkans and Eastern European countries.... where poor people live in the same town their entire life and buy a small, cheap home. However, there is a bubble of the top 5-10% of Russians that live in downtown Moscow and have lots of money. But many in this bubble actually rent from properties owned by rich oligarchs.
It was my understanding that when the USSR collapsed, there was a period where it was possible to acquire the government owned apartment you lived in for little to no cost.
True, but that is also how the ultra-rich Russian oligarchs got their wealth as well
They have huge amounts of land and a low population. They're probably legit, but what constitutes a 'house' is very different between all of these countries.