So there’s a ton of countries that I’ve heard have had truly unaffordable housing for decades, like:
- The UK
- Ireland
- The Netherlands
And I’ve heard of a ton of countries where the cost of houses was until recently quite affordable where it’s also started getting worse:
- Germany
- Poland
- Czechia
- Hungary
- The US
- Australia
- Canada
- And I’m sure plenty others
- It seems to be a pan-Western bloc thing. Is the cause in all these countries the same?
- We’ve heard of success stories in cities like Vienna where much of the housing stock is municipally owned – but those cities have had it that way for decades. Would their system alleviate the current crisis if established in the aforementioned countries?
- What specific policies should I be demanding of our politicians to make housing affordable again? Is there any silver bullet? Has any country demonstrably managed to reverse this crisis yet?
Vienna has 50% public housing and as a result basically no homeless population.
Would the ruling class want this problem solved if it’s the only commodity that can’t be produced?
I was impressed with Singapore when i was there a while back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_and_Development_Board
Yea, the technique of the government simply owning all the land and doing all the development does work. It just can’t really be applied to any western country without a massive revolt when they confiscate all the land from private owners. The government could never afford to pay for all of it, so it would have to be seized without payment.
Also, hasn’t it been demonstrated that the government directly deciding the allocation of resources leads to massively clumsy solutions? I’m surprised it hasn’t impeded Singapore’s renowned efficiency.
Some governments can do it for some industries.
Public healthcare in most developed countries is generally pretty decent, though obviously not without flaws the allocation is clearly better for society than the US private healthcare system.
For allocation of food, it’s pretty shit. Too many people want too many different things in that scenario and it has never really worked in practice.
Downtown Los Angeles has a high rise that was abandoned by the owner/builder. It’s covered in graffiti. They could start there.
Every time I see it i die a little inside
You don’t need to seize it, just tax it enough that land ownership is no longer profitable
I’ve advocated for LVT in the last couple of weeks even.
Fascinating. I didn’t expect a country known for neoliberalism like Singapore to have fully nationalised land ownership (haven’t read the whole wiki article admittedly)
China has essentially zero homeless iirc. Most people own their homes
So do most people here in Czechia. We have had capitalism for 35 years and for the first 30 house prices were stable and affordable (with no large municipal sector). Something has happened within the last 5 years and I’d like to know if it’s the same cause as in the other countries and how it can be reversed.
Such is the path of decommunization. Most post-soviet countries have or will experience something similar as capitalists take the housing for profit.
I definitely do fear something like that happening. Still, how would you explain the 30 years under capitalism when it was working fine? Why didn’t the capitalists swoop in in year 1 (or 15)?
That depends on if you consider the migrant workers living in encampments as homeless or not
I have no idea if China has those but I can tell you that America does. I’d still rather not have humans suffering on every street corner.
Right, instead it’s better to shove them into camps on the city limits, where the well-off population doesn’t have to watch the other 20% of their total population live in utter poverty and suffer.
Thinking of China’s answer to the problem of poverty and homelessness as a solution is an insult to human rights.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340706113_Homelessness_and_the_Universal_Family_in_Chin
China has a roughly 20% migrant worker population living in notably unsanitary conditions who do not own their homes. This is a direct result of their economic policy.
They have a massive homeless population. It just looks different than in other parts of the world.
I will take your word for it for now but will definitely be doing sone research on this. I should know more about china than I do right now
This is why I linked a published academic paper on the matter. You don’t need to take my word for it.
I’ll be reading it when I am not drunk anymore, should have mentioned.
Enjoy ;-)
I’ve always read that Japan seems to always be ahead of this issue due to its laws.
It’s mostly supply and demand. In Tokyo and Osaka / satellite cities, prices are going up, everywhere else they are dirt cheap.
However, in urban areas prices still aren’t as crazy unaffordable as you may think, because Japan has a very narrow wage gap (everyone in Japan thinks they are middle class, and their not wrong compared to other countries).
Another thing that makes Japan different to other housing markets, and is affected by the laws, is earthquake concerns. What other countries would call ‘established’ dwellings, they call ‘second hand’. Laws are updated every ten years or so that mean newer dwellings are much safer than older ones. Knockdown/rebuild is so common that there is competitive prices, as there’s plenty of builders to choose from. The builders are also very efficient, and apart from safety law, regulations are low (you can build whatever you like, so long as it’s robust), so labour costs are much lower compared to other countries.
If you go on Suumo.jp you’ll find plenty of very affordable houses, even in good areas/good rail links, but it’s because they don’t expect anyone will live in the house as-is - the buyer will most likely “reform” it (massive rennovation) or replace.
The state of the Japanese housing market is due mostly to cultural/economic/low immigration. If you want a policy solution other high-income countries can use to solve housing issues, the state-capitalism solution of the Singapore HDB is the best model I’ve come across. Second would probably be Vienna’s focus on social housing.
Thank you kind stranger, that was a nice and interesting review!
Home prices in (many) metro areas are riding steadily. Edit: some cities where the primary industry for the area is declining, this trend is going the other way
In many rural areas home prices have fallen dramatically due to a combination of migration to cities and overall declining population.
If this is a comment about homeless people, there are still plenty of homeless people all over Japan.
I live in the United States, and as I understand it the housing crisis is caused by several factors.
-
The lowest level of zoning is typically residential single family. This means small scale owners and developers cannot increase supply by taking a house and adding to it. Either by adding extensions, subletting, or even building a mini-apartment building. To add to this, US regulations require apartment units to have access to 2 staircases, in the event of a fire. This is good fore safety, but greatly restricts style of apartments to hotel styles, and increases costs, so smaller apartments don’t make as much sense. This requirement should be able to be waved in the case of fire resistant building materials.
-
Speculative land owning. Some property owners simply sit on properties in developing areas, waiting for its price to increase, and since tax is based on the value of the total property (land+building), a decaying building reduces the cost of owning that land. To fix this, we should be taxing the value of the land instead, punishing speculators, while incentivising people to improve their land (by building housing).
-
Overuse of cars. Even when places want to expand housing, the complete and utter reliance on cars as transportation in the US leads to backlash for increasing housing, as the perception is that it will increase traffic. To combat this cities need to rethink their transportation strategies to radically increase things like bus and bike lanes. Even when cities do have buses, the strategy funded by the federal government is abysmal. For example instead of running buses that can hold 15 passengers and run every 15 mins, cities will instead run buses that can hold 50 people every hour, and so these buses run mostly empty with 2-3 passengers.
By “resistance” you mean “rich people and their money, along with the laws that have kept them rich”
While yes, the rich are the main problem, the bulk of resistance is the middle class. They don’t want to see the value of their property go down, or see increased traffic. Even though the suggested policy changes would help them too! The brainwashing is strong among people, not just the rich.
It’s also hard, because to make meaningful changes, you need progress in at least 2 of these areas at the same time, which means you need to get people and politicians to agree on how to fix the problem!
I see many people blaming corporate ownership as a problem, and in our current system is it is. But implementing my proposed changes would make it unpalatable for exploitive corporations, without needing to explicitly ban them!
Agreed, most of us are idiots who don’t want to create change if it means even the tiniest amount of momentary inconvenience.
-
What specific policies should I be demanding of our politicians to make housing affordable again?
- Ban corporate ownership and excessive individual ownership (ex: > 10) of homes.
- Remove most barriers to building lots of new and higher density housing (ex: four-story multi-unit buildings) except legitimate safety and ecological concerns.
Don’t (really) let the owners set a price, have the (min and max) price set based on objective factors such as square metres of floor and the amount of schools, shops etc. nearby, as set by the government instead of by the highest bidder.
Ban corporate ownership and excessive individual ownership (ex: > 10) of homes.
This is also what my knee jerk reaction would be. Do you know if it’s actually been done in any country, and whether it worked?
I don’t know, and based on a quick search, it doesn’t appear that it’s been done. California is currently working on a law to limit corporate ownership to 1,000 homes, lol.
Lol. At least a step in the right direction I guess. They should make it decrease by 100 each year
In my own Portugal, which is a very turistic country and also towards the bottom of the GDP-per-capita scale in the EU, things that would likely work very well would also be:
- Crack down on AirBnB
- Forbid ownership for non-residents.
Portugal currently has a massive house inflation problem (extra massive, because of how low average incomes are here) and a lot of it has to do with residential housing being removed from the housing market and turned into short term turist lets (for example, over 10% of housing in Lisbon has been turned into AirBnB lets) and foreign investors (not just big companies but also individuals, such as well off pensioneers from places like France) pulling prices up by being far less price sensitive than the locals as they’re buying residential housing as investments having far more money available than the average Portuguese.
Having lived in both Britain and Portugal during housing bubbles, what I’ve observed was that the politicians themselves purposefully inflate those bubbles, partly because they themselves are part of the upper middle class or even above (especially in the UK) who can afford to and have Realestate “investments” and hence stand to gain personally (as do their mates) from Realestate prices going up and partly because the way Official GDP (which is supposedly the Real GDP, which has Inflation effects removed) is calculated nowadays means that house price inflation appears as GDP “growth” since the effects of house price increases come in via the “inputted rent” mechanism but the Inflation Indexes used to create that GDP do not include house price inflation, so by sacrificing the lives of many if not most people in the country (especially the young, for example the average age for them to leave their parent’s home in Portugal is now above 34 years old and at this point half of all University graduates leave the country as soon as they graduate) they both enrich themselves and can harp in the news all about how they made the GDP go up.
All this has knock on effects on the rest of the Economy, from the braindrain as highly educated young adults leave and the even faster population aging as people can’t afford to have kids, to shops closing because most people have less money left over after paying rent or mortgage so spend less, plus the commercial realestate market is also in a bubble so shops too suffer from higher rents. However all this is slow to fully manifest itself plus those who bought their houses before when they were cheaper don’t feel directly like the rest, and they generally don’t really mentally link the more visible effects (such as more and more empty storefronts) to realestate inflation, much less do more complex analysis of predictable effects, such as how the braindrain and fall in birthrates will impact their pensions in a decade or two.
I see, yes I definitely agree that AirBnB is part of the problem (it’s happening too here in Prague), although I think it can’t be the main cause because the price rise is also being felt in other parts of the country where there are practically no tourists…
Whilst I would be wary of saying AirBnB is the main cause (more likely it’s a big one but not the only one), keep in mind that when realestate prices go up in major cities, that pushes out people who go to cheaper places, pushing prices up in those places which in turn might push some out from those places and into even cheaper places.
So housing bubbles centered in main cities do naturally spread out from there to places were the original causes of the bubble are not present.
That is certainly a good point
Crack down on AirBnB Forbid ownership for non-residents.
Ah, yes, I forgot to mention AirBnB! Those are both good calls.
The AirBnb issue is a little complicated because I’ve seen some good arguments that it can help people afford to keep their homes. But I think that could easily be addressed by a single, simple rule: you are only allowed to rent your primary residence as determined by tax records.
that it can help people afford to keep their homes
This is actually a good argument but I believe it’s only valid when people sub-let empty rooms, and don’t buy whole new houses to rent out as is now more commonly the case.
In addition to only renting out single rooms, I also thought of the scenario where someone goes to visit a relative and rents their whole apartment while they’re away, perhaps when there is some major event in their town that causes all hotels to be sold out. Both of those scenarios would be addressed by the rule I proposed to only allow renting out the primary residence on AirBnB.
Agreed
only allow renting out the primary residence on AirBnB.
Yes this sounds like a good (and importantly very simple) rule
I think I had heard of the idea before, so I didn’t come up with it. I just did a quick search and one of the first results says LA does this. There are probably other cities too…
https://www.steadily.com/blog/airbnb-short-term-rental-laws-regulations-los-angeles
Primary Residence: Hosts can only list their primary residence—the home where they live for at least six months of the year—as a short-term rental. Registration: A mandatory registration process with the city includes obtaining a Home-sharing permit and paying an annual $89 fee. Hosts must renew this permit and provide evidence of continuous compliance. Annual Cap: Short-term rentals are subject to a 120-day annual cap.
Actually, this is impressive. LA seems to have it’s shit together on this issue. Do you know if house prices are still a problem there?
Massachusetts has a regional transit system, and just used that to mandate transit oriented development for all towns and cities served. It requires they zone higher density housing “as of right” within half a mile of transit. I have high hopes for that, but it will take decades and we’re starting at such a high cost of living.
However we also have the problem of a stagnant population and very little room for new development. It’s infill and replacement housing so will be even slower
I think money should be invested into investigating ways to retrofit the current urban sprawl neigborhoods to make them higher density.
Good to hear about any moves in the right direction anywhere.
Free
Social
Housing
Stop making it more complicated
Oh, I agree if you’re talking about addressing homelessness. That makes sense. If you’re advocating free social housing for every single person in the country, I’m not sure how that could be done or if it’s ever been done anywhere ever? I would be curious to hear about possible solutions though.
What specific policies should I be demanding of our politicians to make housing affordable again?
The answer is Georgism combined with no zoning, but people aren’t ready to hear about that yet.
By Georgism I mean a very high tax (80+%) on the unimproved value of land. It prevents land speculation and returns the value of the land to the public. Houses would be incredibly cheap, because you couldn’t make money by merely owning land. The only reason to own a house would be to live in it, or to provide a true service for people who would actually prefer to rent.
This guy sees the cat
Finland only has approximately 1000 willfully homeless people. I’d call that solving the crisis.
Yeah I was going to say Finland. Their public housing system should be an example for other nations to follow.
They won’t, of course…
They also have a relatively small monocultural population and really cold winters.
How does having a monocultural population make housing easier?
It doesn’t, that’s just a bullshit, half baked “argument” people like to use when someone points out to them that Scandinavian nations have figured most of this shit out already.
one of the main reasons people are against state housing is because people with the wrong skin color might get it
I was going to let him say something obtusely racist and then roast him, but this works too.
EDIT: He did it anyway.
They literally can’t help themselves
It’s not always quite so clear-cut racist. Often it’s more about social norms and food choices. When everyone shares an insular culture, it’s easier to live near each other without having to be actively tolerant of people’s differences. And the social nets that ARE set up are more likely to work for people with a shared cultural background.
Shut uppppp. I live in a building that has a lot of immigrants (mostly students) and we get along just fine. That “oh I’m not racist, different cultures just can’t fit together” argument is bullshit, and even if people from different cultures don’t get along too well, it’s still better than them being outside when it’s -20 degrees.
Also as if people of the “same culture” aren’t equally as hard to live around.
Hot take: blatant racism and veiled racism are equally bad reasons for a country to have poor housing policy.
I’m pretty sure ALL reasons are bad reasons? It doesn’t stop humans from generally being racist when it comes to housing. Which is a shame; you grow a lot more as a person when you live next to people from other cultures.
Right. So in other words, we should just implement Finland’s social housing model everywhere.
I’m sorry, food choices? Are you literally making a “but they smell” argument?
Do you often find yourself having to be “actively tolerant” of people’s differences?
True, but they could just decide to ignore homeless people like most of the US and other capitalist countries have, but they didn’t.
If they did ignore it, by spring there would be less homelessness.
But Finland only has like 2000 people. /s
That’s good to hear, although it’s kinda beyond the scope of my question. I’m asking more about how to stop prices rising when they’ve suddenly started quickly rising and people don’t know why.
As a Finn, please stop talking about us as some kind of utopia. We haven’t solved shit and our government is infested with fascists. I’m preeetty sure there are a lot more than that out there, unless a quarter of those 1000 happen to be around my morning commute.
Japan with a very unique method
Oh, that wonderful unique method.
In good locations: Houses depreciate in value over time because they are less safe in the event of an earthquake than newer houses.
In bad locations: just take the house, everybody else left this town anyways.
People are not ready to hear this, but the problem is that “Housing” is being treated as a market, not a basic human right. As long as governments are full of homeowners who will lose a lot of money should the house prices go down as a result of abundance, the problem will keep getting worse.
In most countries, the middle class is seduced into thinking of buying a house as an “investment”.
I suppose it depends on how you’d define “solved”. If we’re talking about basically eliminating homelessness, Cuba has done immense work in that regard. Say what you will about the Cuban government, but Cuba has a near-zero homeless population because the government has built a ton of housing and caps rent at 10% of individual income in that state-owned housing. Cuba is also a country with a tradition of multi-generational extended family homes, so there’s a greater chance that you’d be able to move in with a family member if you fell on hard times. Home ownership rate is around 85% compared to 65% in the US. All of this is nothing new, though, so it’s hard to say if it’s the answer to current issues of housing that’s largely driven by corporate greed, but it certainly sounds like it couldn’t hurt. Granted, I’ve seen people give examples of homes that are rather small and spartan, where the walls are made of bare cinderblock and generally aren’t very pretty, but that’s way better than being homeless even if some of the housing isn’t as nice as others. I’ve also examples of state-owned housing lived in by the same kinds of people, but are really quite nice as well. Whether the US government would ever do this, though, seems unlikely. Not at the scale we’d need and not for so cheap, anyway, especially not with Trump coming to office. I can’t really speak for the governments of other countries, however, and I’m no expert on Cuba either, so I could have gotten some things wrong. The US embargo to Cuba since the 90s also means that Cuba has had a more difficult time procuring building materials for the low-cost housing that’s helped so many, which has led to an increase in size and number for those extended family homes over the years.
Yeah. I was in Cuba recently. A lot of poverty but very safe (in Havana at least, where I was. Can’t speak to the rest but I’m told it’s similar). Nobody sleeping in the streets. People were fed, though with very limited choices and portion.
Then you look at some cities in the USA, the richest country on earth and there’s people living in the streets, begging for food. You feel unsafe waiting down the street. Tons of desperation and even those with housing feel like they’re walking a tightrope.
Not saying Cuba’s situation is “better”, it’s definitely nuanced though. And we should really see what Cuba could do if the US would stop trying to cripple it as it has for to many decades. It’s unjustifiable and disgusting.
🇨🇺♥️
You make a very important point about life which I realized recently: that things are not necessarily better/worse, just ‘different’.
Crises are going to continue being crises as long as the wealth inequality of people worldwide continues increasing.
Think of it like this. There’s a finite amount of money in the world. Right?
The wealth of billionaires has doubled in the last few years. That money came from somewhere. Still with me?
Ok, so… if the wealth of the wealthiest people has doubled, that amount of money they gained was previously held by the less wealthy, but it has now been consolidated into the wealthier people’s bank accounts.
So. How do we solve the housing crisis (or any crisis)? Step 1 has to be to undo the consolidation of wealth. Solving crises without addressing the consolidation of wealth is a pipe dream.
Feel free to hunt for legal mechanisms for achieving that. But I think you’ll find there are institutions and propaganda preventing those mechanisms from being effective.
Yes, USSR.
I wonder what the USSR would look like today if it still existed. Probably not good.
Better than Putin Russia, that for sure.
I think it would look like “better EU”, but EU itself would be better than in our timeline.
I think the EU could easily be far more leftist if that’s who won in the national + EP elections. I think its constitutional design is relatively apolitical
I think its constitutional design is relatively apolitical
Relatively as long as we are talking about variations of parlamentary republic or other system without Great Leader. For example we can compare EU and USA of our timeline: one has functioning healthcare, public transport and labour laws, while other has system, that allows only for two right-wing parties to exist, both of which compete for sucking corporate dicks more. All this while election of Great Leader takes all attention from parlamentary and local elections.
And as you have said “if that’s who won in the national + EP elections”. Having oligarchy neigbour instead of leftist one makes domestic oligarchs more likely to win.
