• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Home Ownership is Collapsing. What, if anything, should we do?

phattonez said:
Property is fine. Usury is not. When you're given back the exact same thing in the end, by what right should you demand profit?
Click to expand...

Opportunity cost and risk.

Why would I lend anything to someone for an extended period of time, during which I could have made money on it, or have it lost, destroyed or damaged during the period of the time it was lent out?

Without the compensation, why would anyone lend anything out. No one would get a mortgage. People would have to save up the entire purchase price of a place to live before being able to get one. Meaning people would have to wait until they are 50, or get it from relatives
 
Nap said:
Did you happen to notice the rising prices typically occur in the most heavily regulated industries while the least regulated trends downward over time.
Click to expand...

The cheapest items are also those that have heavy competition from imports or are primarily imports
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Opportunity cost and risk.

Why would I lend anything to someone for an extended period of time, during which I could have made money on it, or have it lost, destroyed or damaged during the period of the time it was lent out?

Without the compensation, why would anyone lend anything out. No one would get a mortgage. People would have to save up the entire purchase price of a place to live before being able to get one. Meaning people would have to wait until they are 50, or get it from relatives
Click to expand...

Which would result in a massive decrease in demand. What does that do to prices?
 
phattonez said:
I can't imagine we'd have much of an issue once usury is taken care of. There wouldn't be any way to own all of the land without compound interest.
Click to expand...

I think a more mutualist approach to usury would be a big help, but I see land speculation as another piece to the puzzle. If one had the capital they could buy cheap land, wait for prices to rise due to sprawl, and reap the profits. I don't know if you would put those profits under the category of usury, but to me that value belongs to the local community, not the landlord.
 
Geoist said:
I think a more mutualist approach to usury would be a big help, but I see land speculation as another piece to the puzzle. If one had the capital they could buy cheap land, wait for prices to rise due to sprawl, and reap the profits. I don't know if you would put those profits under the category of usury, but to me that value belongs to the local community, not the landlord.
Click to expand...

Without usury driving up the price of property, how much is it really going to rise? Could you become infinitely wealthy?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Opportunity cost and risk.

Why would I lend anything to someone for an extended period of time, during which I could have made money on it, or have it lost, destroyed or damaged during the period of the time it was lent out?

Without the compensation, why would anyone lend anything out. No one would get a mortgage. People would have to save up the entire purchase price of a place to live before being able to get one. Meaning people would have to wait until they are 50, or get it from relatives
Click to expand...

Not everything needs to have a profit-motive, hence public banking.
 
phattonez said:
Since 2008, home ownership rates have been collapsing to historic lows. Among all age groups younger than 65, rates have plummeted.

Change-in-homeownership-rates-1993-2014-jchs.harvard.edu_1.jpg


This causes a few problems:
1. The groups who do not own are effectively transferring their wealth to landlords since they're not building equity.
2. This increased instability causes social capital to decay.
3. People who do not own anything in their country aren't going to have a stake in its long term future.

So what do we do about this? I have argued for cutting back tax breaks to landlords and increasing interest rates, but can we go even further, and should we? For instance, our labor force participation is still at a historic low, so we have millions of people not working. Would it be better to organize something similar to the WPA to get these people building homes?

Or are you fine with the status quo?
Click to expand...

You got anything more up to date?
 
Geoist said:
Not everything needs to have a profit-motive, hence public banking.
Click to expand...

They still charge interest, and have fees on their products. They have to cover expenses, build up capital, cover defaults etc
 
phattonez said:
Without usury driving up the price of property, how much is it really going to rise?
Click to expand...

Not really sure. I just believe a geo-mutualist is ultimately the best approach. I would be elated if we even just get public banking in my lifetime.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
They still charge interest, and have fees on their products. They have to cover expenses, build up capital, cover defaults etc
Click to expand...

Yes, there still has to be interest to cover upkeep. That would be the only interest in a pure public banking system. Interest to cover upkeep is different from interest for profit.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
They still charge interest, and have fees on their products. They have to cover expenses, build up capital, cover defaults etc
Click to expand...

They get plenty of wealth for not producing any goods.
 
Owning a home made more sense in a previous era where people kept the same job for a decade or more. With constant shifts in employment, purchasing a home might not make sense if you pay relocation costs and real estate commissions every three or four years when you move to a new job site.

Housing prices are also artificially elevated by tax breaks on mortgage interest payments, a subsidy that few conservatives dare to challenge.

One problem is that the IT industry has been allowed to concentrate too many jobs along the Silicon Belt and Seattle corridors, which escalates housing prices in those areas. That industry should be decentralized. Dell set a good example by moving to Texas.
 
It seems pretty obvious to me that this phenomenon just reflects the 2008 recession and the crash of the housing bubble.

Home ownership rose very quickly from about 1995 on because of increasingly lax lending standards (encouraged by the government) and artificially low interest rates.

After the housing bubble collapsed in 2008, lending standards have become much more stringent and it's harder to buy a house. The trend looks like it's reversing now.
 
Millions and millions need to rent, for many reasons including age, job instability/loss, inability to maintain a home, job transfers, etc. And there are many that many never earn enough to buy a home...and that's their responsibility. To develop career/trade skills necessary/available in their locale and/or move to where they can find a job and afford a home.

Why would you remove incentives for landlords to provide a necessary residential option?

Besides, as a home owner, renting has a lot of positives too. Home maint is very expensive and takes alot of time and effort.

Not building equity? Find a reasonable rent, and put $$ in savings every week, every year.
 
phattonez said:
Since 2008, home ownership rates have been collapsing to historic lows. Among all age groups younger than 65, rates have plummeted.

Change-in-homeownership-rates-1993-2014-jchs.harvard.edu_1.jpg


This causes a few problems:
1. The groups who do not own are effectively transferring their wealth to landlords since they're not building equity.
2. This increased instability causes social capital to decay.
3. People who do not own anything in their country aren't going to have a stake in its long term future.

So what do we do about this? I have argued for cutting back tax breaks to landlords and increasing interest rates, but can we go even further, and should we? For instance, our labor force participation is still at a historic low, so we have millions of people not working. Would it be better to organize something similar to the WPA to get these people building homes?

Or are you fine with the status quo?
Click to expand...

How would increasing interest rate encourage people to take on a mortgage? Between the high expense of home ownership and young adults living at home longer, I'm not sure what can be done. I've also heard a lot about the younger generation being more mobile. Actually living in RVs and of course, the tiny house movement. It's more affordable for many.
 
gdgyva said:
one has to save to participate in growing wealth

it doesnt happen by osmosis

you cant get wealthy if you dont invest...in yourself, in a home, in a business, in stocks, in SOMETHING

you might want to talk to people...i know i have

we give FREE money....a 3% match on a 401k....and still cant get 25% to participate

so i am done with worrying about those who dont have any....they dont have any because they arent willing to actually sacrifice a little now, for a lot more later....
Click to expand...


It might not be unwillingness, but inability. My daughter has $66k in student loan debt. She doesn't see herself able to save much of anything right now.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I would say in many of the major markets, younger people have been priced out of the housing market. Putting down a 10% down payment on a house in those markets is like putting a 40% in many other markets for a similar house.

A lot of people are also not working traditional full time permanent jobs. Unless they make a lot of money getting a mortgage is very difficult in those cases
Click to expand...

I agree some areas cost of houses is ridiculously high.

It is a personal choice on the type of job one wants to have. If it one that does not allow home ownership, it is a choice the person made.
 
phattonez said:
This has a lot to do with demographics. Older people have higher home ownership rates, and our population is aging quickly.
Click to expand...
You mean the rate, not the change in rate (like your op) shows that we are getting back to historical levels.

What a nothing burger thread.
 
phattonez said:
Since 2008, home ownership rates have been collapsing to historic lows. Among all age groups younger than 65, rates have plummeted.

Change-in-homeownership-rates-1993-2014-jchs.harvard.edu_1.jpg


This causes a few problems:
1. The groups who do not own are effectively transferring their wealth to landlords since they're not building equity.
2. This increased instability causes social capital to decay.
3. People who do not own anything in their country aren't going to have a stake in its long term future.

So what do we do about this? I have argued for cutting back tax breaks to landlords and increasing interest rates, but can we go even further, and should we? For instance, our labor force participation is still at a historic low, so we have millions of people not working. Would it be better to organize something similar to the WPA to get these people building homes?

Or are you fine with the status quo?
Click to expand...
How exactly would make being a landlord less profitable improve home ownership rate? Wouldn't increased interest rates cause fewer people to be able afford buying a house? Have you looked at more recent data?
 
Last edited:
holbritter said:
How would increasing interest rate encourage people to take on a mortgage?
Click to expand...

What makes you think that I want to increase mortgage debt? Mortgage debt doesn't increase housing supply sustainably. It just drives up prices.

Between the high expense of home ownership and young adults living at home longer, I'm not sure what can be done. I've also heard a lot about the younger generation being more mobile. Actually living in RVs and of course, the tiny house movement. It's more affordable for many.
Click to expand...

I argue that it's the financialization of our economy that's responsible. We don't actually make anything. A good chunk of our economy is nothing more than pushing money around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom