95

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
  1. It seems to be a pan-Western bloc thing. Is the cause in all these countries the same?
  2. 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?
  3. 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?
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 65 points 1 week ago

Finland only has approximately 1000 willfully homeless people. I'd call that solving the crisis.

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

They also have a relatively small monocultural population and really cold winters.

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago

True, but they could just decide to ignore homeless people like most of the US and other capitalist countries have, but they didn't.

[-] Evil_incarnate@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago

If they did ignore it, by spring there would be less homelessness.

[-] Bender@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 week ago

How does having a monocultural population make housing easier?

one of the main reasons people are against state housing is because people with the wrong skin color might get it

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 44 points 1 week ago

What specific policies should I be demanding of our politicians to make housing affordable again?

  1. Ban corporate ownership and excessive individual ownership (ex: > 10) of homes.
  2. Remove most barriers to building lots of new and higher density housing (ex: four-story multi-unit buildings) except legitimate safety and ecological concerns.
[-] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

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...

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] sparky@lemmy.federate.cc 36 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Austria has, with widespread high quality public housing.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

There are some waitlists and whatnot still, but arguably the bigger impact is that the increased housing supply has kept private rents very affordable too.

[-] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

the increased housing supply has kept private rents very affordable too.

This is very good.

Do you know if Austria had an Ireland-style house price problem before they did this (ie. would it halt the crisis in Ireland now), or is it more that it just prevented the crisis we see in surrounding countries from happening in Austria in the first place?

[-] infinitevalence@discuss.online 27 points 1 week ago
[-] fireweed@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Japan is an outlier for numerous reasons, the biggest of which is that housing value there decreases over time (without going into the causes, the result is a feedback loop where housing isn't built to last because it's a poor long-term investment, so it depreciates like other semi-short-lived products, such as cars). This isn't something the government planned, it came about naturally. So I wouldn't say they've "solved" housing so much as their situation has made it a non-issue.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Japan also has longtime low population growth due to a mixture of nationalist anti-immigration and just generally low birthrates. So with the passage of time, less and less older homes will be in use.

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago

This is both false and true. Japan has a few things happening that are keeping rates lower, but the primary thing keeping costs low in Japan is the fact that the units are tiny. I'm not talking a little on the small side, I'm talking 200 square feet or less per person in a family home. No yards either.

If you compare Japan to the dwelling sizes of other nations, it's just as bad or worse per square foot.

The end goal for solving housing should not be to make the rooms as small as possible. Especially in countries where land space isn't the limiting factor.

[-] ch00f@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

I mean there are a ton of efficiencies to be gained with using communal resources.

Why can’t a bunch of people share a park rather than needing their own back yard?

Not saying it shouldn’t be an option, but the American obsession with detached housing at the cost of higher density housing is a major contributor to insane housing costs.

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

Sure, but apartments at 1000 square feet shouldn't be unaffordable in north American cities, but they are.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago
[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Downtown Los Angeles has a high rise that was abandoned by the owner/builder. It’s covered in graffiti. They could start there.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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)

Vienna has 50% public housing and as a result basically no homeless population.

[-] Depress_Mode@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 3 points 1 week ago

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.

🇨🇺♥️

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] tisktisk@piefed.social 14 points 1 week ago

Would the ruling class want this problem solved if it's the only commodity that can't be produced?

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 9 points 1 week ago

I think China is doing something funky, but it's hard to get reliable information about that country

[-] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

Agreed. We are sorely missing an honest and reliable source of news about China.

[-] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

Take what I say with a big grain of salt because I'm just an onlooker, but from what I've heard housing is incredibly unaffordable in the desireable cities like Beijing and Shanghai, like $600000 for a 2bdrm when the median salary is $20000. It's a speculative investment whose bubble has burst but prices are still super inflated.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

China also has a massive homelessness problem, so it's definitely not a "pan-Western bloc" thing. This is despite China executing every landlord and building enough homes, turns out people get assigned to a home in a region where they don't actually live or work...

[-] magiccupcake@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I live in the United States, and as I understand it the housing crisis is caused by several factors.

  1. 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 for 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.

  2. 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).

  3. 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.

The main policy changes that we need are less restrictive zoning, tax speculators, and diversify urban transport. But resistance is heavy, many politicians themselves are land holders and do not want to implement these changes, or to anger those that do. Landholders generally have more political voice, power, and wealth.

[-] hypnotoad__@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

By "resistance" you mean "rich people and their money, along with the laws that have kept them rich"

[-] magiccupcake@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

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!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DragonsInARoom@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

How Britain (Almost) Solved the Housing Crisis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZpLiJdIGbs so we didn't and then we did and then we didn't

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] rthomas6@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] mke_geek@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago

Look at places in the U.S. who have built a lot more housing -- rents and housing prices have gone down.

  1. Relax/change zoning requirements
  2. Give subsidies to developers for affordable housing
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

Vienna is not as good a situation as it may look. Their public housing stock is only great if you can't get into it. There are waitlists years long, and you have to live in the city already to be eligible to get on the waitlist. Private housing is still expensive.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I've always read that Japan seems to always be ahead of this issue due to its laws.

[-] weirdboy@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
95 points (93.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36055 readers
1144 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS