Quote:
Originally Posted by Scucca  GDP per capita isn't really an appropriate measure for this stuff, given the impact of wealth concentration. Moreover, it is countries with high poverty rates that tend to have high home ownership rates.
You wouldn't expect a perfect relationship, given the numerous variables impacting on the tenure decision. Given the poverty risks that your folk live under, we'd indeed expect a higher home ownership rate. However, the US's housing market is not a particular outlier. It has reasonably high home ownership and a stunted social welfare system.) |
That's an interesting statement because the United Kingdom has a larger percent of it's population under the poverty line than in the U.S. (12% v. 14%). It also has a higher unemployment rate (as does most of Europe compared to the U.S.). It's per capita GDP is also about $10,000 lower than that of the U.S.. What measure would you prefer? Could you cite the actual study? I really do not know ehere you're getting this (cited information from the CIA worldfactbook).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scucca You're perhaps trying to over complicate matters? A large proportion of home owners are poverty-stricken and mortgage pressures are bound to intensity deprivation problems (and the higher risk of mental problems) ) |
I'm trying to point out why the evidence might not say what you think it does. I'd need to read it before we could know either way. Could I see some evidence on that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scucca Externalities would impact on poor neighbourhoods, via home owners failing to maintain the quality of the housing stock. The rental market would be a different market failure: either asymmetric information problems (i.e. hidden action where the renter has a reduced incentive to look after the property) or opportunism (i.e. the owner stealing quasi-rents as, given there are costs from moving, they provide slum accommodation) |
There are then externalities on both sides, but what definitively shows it one way or the other?