So 30% of people can’t afford their own house and that doesn’t seem like inequality to you?
Income inequality is a completely different thing from home ownership. Also, some of those 30% choose to not own a house. Also further, the average home ownership rate in EU is almost exactly the same as in the US, but our local purchasing power tends to be quite a lot worse.
Perhaps things are different where you live, but where I live, there’s always a significant additional bureaucratic cost when selling a house and buying another one. Because of that, renting has at least a single clear benefit beyond just being able to afford it: greater flexibility. Also, the financial risk is almost zero when you rent.
there’s always a significant additional bureaucratic cost when selling a house and buying another one.
This really only affects landlords and estate agents. Most people looking for a home are looking for a place to stay for life, and any “bureaucratic cost”, if you’re purely talking about red tape, form-filling, phone calls etc, is more than worth it for a lifetime home. Again, citation needed. If you’re talking about a literal monetary cost… whoa, look at that - capitalism!
renting has at least a single clear benefit beyond just being able to afford it: greater flexibility
“Flexibility” is a daft measure, only useful for people who plan to move often, which, again, is not common, except in the case of people needing to move often for work, which - hey, it’s capitalism again!
Also, the financial risk is almost zero when you rent.
“Almost” is doing a lot of work in this sentence. The risk of being made homeless by your landlord for petty reasons is a pretty clear risk. Having your rent hiked is a financial risk. Having to bite the bullet and choose an expensive place to rent because it’s the only one reasonably close to work is a financial risk. Being under someone’s thumb to provide them income is itself an inherent financial risk.
And by the way - what do you think causes the financial risk of home ownership, since you’re so intent on proving my point for me?
Try and think a little more deeply. An accident in itself is not a financial risk. Even flooding isn’t inherently a financial risk. Do you know what is?
Also, “market changes” is a part of what I’m pointing at ;)
Ok, so which multiple award-winning, widely respected PhD of Economics would you suggest instead? Or you just against things instead of having any positions of your own, like most other deep-end socialists are?
By the way - are you unaware of the incredible self own inherent in this? In your attempt to “recommend” a book for more information on these issues, you recommend “basic economics”. Well…
Income inequality is a completely different thing from home ownership. Also, some of those 30% choose to not own a house. Also further, the average home ownership rate in EU is almost exactly the same as in the US, but our local purchasing power tends to be quite a lot worse.
USA is doing pretty fine economically.
[citation needed]
And even if true, what do you think is driving that decision? Decisions aren’t made in a vacuum. I posit - it’s the financial burden.
Perhaps things are different where you live, but where I live, there’s always a significant additional bureaucratic cost when selling a house and buying another one. Because of that, renting has at least a single clear benefit beyond just being able to afford it: greater flexibility. Also, the financial risk is almost zero when you rent.
This really only affects landlords and estate agents. Most people looking for a home are looking for a place to stay for life, and any “bureaucratic cost”, if you’re purely talking about red tape, form-filling, phone calls etc, is more than worth it for a lifetime home. Again, citation needed. If you’re talking about a literal monetary cost… whoa, look at that - capitalism!
“Flexibility” is a daft measure, only useful for people who plan to move often, which, again, is not common, except in the case of people needing to move often for work, which - hey, it’s capitalism again!
“Almost” is doing a lot of work in this sentence. The risk of being made homeless by your landlord for petty reasons is a pretty clear risk. Having your rent hiked is a financial risk. Having to bite the bullet and choose an expensive place to rent because it’s the only one reasonably close to work is a financial risk. Being under someone’s thumb to provide them income is itself an inherent financial risk.
And by the way - what do you think causes the financial risk of home ownership, since you’re so intent on proving my point for me?
Accidents, subpar maintenance, market changes, divorce.
Try and think a little more deeply. An accident in itself is not a financial risk. Even flooding isn’t inherently a financial risk. Do you know what is?
Also, “market changes” is a part of what I’m pointing at ;)
It’s capitalism!
That’s cute, but also not how any of this works.
I suggest https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730 – it’s 700 pages but I’m sure you can do it if you put some effort in.
Oof, unironically suggesting Sowell? Might as well toss in Prager-U, or DailyWire.
Ok, so which multiple award-winning, widely respected PhD of Economics would you suggest instead? Or you just against things instead of having any positions of your own, like most other deep-end socialists are?
fosforus uses deflection!
It’s not very effective!
Answer me instead of making bad jokes, coward.
By the way - are you unaware of the incredible self own inherent in this? In your attempt to “recommend” a book for more information on these issues, you recommend “basic economics”. Well…
Removed by mod