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?
Finland only has approximately 1000 willfully homeless people. I’d call that solving the crisis.
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.
As a non-Finn, can you stop being some utopia despite your fascist-invested government?
You still have better educational system.
They also have a relatively small monocultural population and really cold winters.
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.
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
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
Removed by mod
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.
I’m sorry, food choices? Are you literally making a “but they smell” argument?
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.
Do you often find yourself having to be “actively tolerant” of people’s differences?
Funny how so many people took that. Pointing out that people are, as a whole, racist, and that it influences how they think about the homeless gets turned into a “here’s my bigotry coming out to tell you why it won’t work.”
I guess I could have framed it more clearly, but once the mods removed it, I figured people would just move on.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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
Good to hear about any moves in the right direction anywhere.
I think money should be invested into investigating ways to retrofit the current urban sprawl neigborhoods to make them higher density.
The problem is everything with buildings is slow. Who can afford to replace functional buildings, and buildings remain useful for decades or more? There’s only so much you can do with infill. The only other option I can think of is to change zoning radically enough that it becomes profitable to bulldoze functional buildings. Of course that has additional environmental costs but over time should be fine
I’m personally not a fan of higher density buildings by themselves. That’s just a recipe for annoying people enough that you hope they demand better before they give up and move away. Higher density buildings needs to have some thought put into walkability, personal mobility, and transit
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
No doubt!
Austria has, with widespread high quality public housing.
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.
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?
They’ve been building big public housing since the 1920s. I live next to a lot of it and it’s quite high quality and really pleasant.
Lots of cities/countries has massive public housing (the UK being a great example post WW2) but Vienna is more of an exception in that they didn’t follow the trend in the 70s-90s of privatization and stopping investment (although it did slow down at one point).
They were the same way about their tram system, where they kept it rather than ripping it out like most places. Now everyone else wishes they so had a tram network or is trying to rebuild one.
That being said, rents are rising here too, but they are much more reasonable to begin with. I was living in London previously, and now we spend about 30-40% less for a place over twice the size and in a nicer location. Plus finding a place was muuuuuch easier, since it’s noticeably less competitive.
We still reduced our tram system quite a bit from what it once was; not to zero like e.g. West Berlin did, but lots of places where trams used to run now have bus or metro lines running instead.
Just adding to this, some history if anyone is curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Vienna
This is genuinely cool. I love that they managed to do it within the framework of democracy too.
“before they did this” for Vienna is around WW1, which was a very different time :/
I am not very familiar with housing crises in other countries. I have lived in Vienna my whole life and now live in an apartment I own. This was possible to afford for me (a single man then in his mid-20s working as a software engineer) with a bank loan and some financial support from my family; I am not sure if it would still be possible nowadays.
I see. Yeah, I live across the border in Czechia and the way you did it used to be standard too until 5-10 years ago. Then the prices started rising (especially here in Prague) and it started to be a problem. It used to all be state owned obvs (not sure about einfamillienhauses though) but it was sold to the residents after 1990, and our levels of municipal housing haven’t risen much since then either. I don’t think we had the housing cooperative movement that you guys had in the interwar period.
Vienna has 50% public housing and as a result basically no homeless population.
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.
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.
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.
True. Although I was refering more to the allocation of commodities (food, land) than of services
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)
Japan has.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sure, but apartments at 1000 square feet shouldn’t be unaffordable in north American cities, but they are.
deleted by creator
By making the rooms smaller you’re just kicking the can down the road. Eventually the price inflation will catch up and even those shoeboxes will cost a fortune.
The housing I remember in Japan was the coffin box. A little space long enough for you to lie down in, with a small cubby for items. I think it was about 30 sq. ft. and maybe 90 cu. ft.
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
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’.
Would the ruling class want this problem solved if it’s the only commodity that can’t be produced?
I think China is doing something funky, but it’s hard to get reliable information about that country
Agreed. We are sorely missing an honest and reliable source of news about China.
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.
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 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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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…
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
Ooh I watched this when it was released. So essentially vast municipal ownership. Definitely something I can get behind but it takes decades.
Society doesn’t change overnight
Yes, USSR.
I wonder what the USSR would look like today if it still existed. Probably not good.
It’d look exactly like Russia but bigger. Same corruption, same authoritarianism, same human rights abuse, same power imbalance etc.
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.
EDIT: I think alternative timeline EU would be even better than our timeline because it would have example of union, that focuses on quality of life instead of “number must go up”. Also it is worth noting, that I said this assuming USSR would either survive as it was politically in 1991 or reborn as result of parlament winning in October of 1993.
EDIT2: Also I said it with assumption that USSR would learn, that feeding people to military machine is bad for everything.
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.
