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 ;)
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…
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?
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.
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
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?