Most of you probably know the memes about homes not being affordable to younger generations. It is true, that they are, at least, less affordable as illustrated by Figure 4-1. The reasons for that however aren’t evil Landlords, who want to leech as much as possible. It is more a combination of several factors:

Years of Bad Politics™️ has led to too few houses being built and now there is a shortage. As any highschooler, after paying attention in economics for 30min, can tell you: low supply + high demand = bad for consumers

Following that, most young people want to live in big cities, preferably the few biggest ones. That puts additional strain on these local markets.

Another big contributor to this problem is that Homeowners want to keep the value of their homes up. Anyone wants their assets to rise in value. But since they are the ones who vote in local elections, they vote to keep houses expensive. That means weird zoning, no new Homes etc.

In defense of renting

Renting apartments or even Houses is a good concept. I pay some entity to keep my housing repaired, up to code etc. As a consequence I don’t risk most of my net-worth being deleted by a storm or similar. Renting is more expensive than owning on average, but renters have none of the risk that owning implies.

I personally like fixing and modifying stuff. That includes Computers furniture and Houses. However I also know a lot of people who don’t. They don’t trust themselves to drill a hole in a wall. For those people shifting the responsibility of fixing smaller things to a landlord can be beneficial.

It also frees people up to move around, when their job/life requires it.

Solutions

Build more houses.

Its that simple. Cities need to rezone and remove houses in favor of multi-family buildings or even skyscrapers. Houses in a city make no sense. You want to be in a city to have a lot of people in a small area. Why would you spread out everyone in suburban wastelands.

If you want a house yourself, go to rural areas. I know you nerds are spending your entire social life on the Internet. It’s probably way cheaper to get a fiber connection into the middle of nowhere than paying for city houses. “Mimimi, but there are no queer communities” Then start one. Imagine how powerful all you queer furries will be if you take your tech jobs remote and save like 70% of your housing expenses. Just don’t spend the extra cash on more porn.

I know that when I’m done with my degrees I’ll be building my lair where no ethics boards will find me. My machines will be efficient and my fungi growing fast.

If I have convinced you to embrace the hermit life, come join me. I am always in need of more minions.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Building more isn’t going to solve the problem.

    Simply put, the homeless population is exponentially lower than the current number of vacant housing units (which, basically means landlords are almost exclusively the problem).

    From gigafact.org "vacancies have decreased, from about 19 million in the first quarter of 2011 to about 14.5 million in the last quarter of 2022.

    Homelessness has also decreased modestly from 623,788 in 2011."

    So, if each homeless person got their own house, even the kids who are part of a homeless family, there would still be nearly 14 million vacant housing units held by greedy landlords.

    Edit: Even looking at the overall numbers, there are about 142 million houses currently, and there are about 332 million people.

    See? Nearly double the people? We need more houses.

    Families. Families are anywhere from 2-5 people on average. So again, looking at the homeless population, which is listed as individuals, it would take less than 1/14th of the currently vacant housing units for no one to be homeless.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      18 months ago

      I think in the US that’s true, but most homeless people are in cities and all the vacancies in rural areas. The city vacancies are way too low.