Should it? If housing was structured a little different so owning a house wasn't partaking in speculation but the house was simply a place live, and rental laws allowed reasonable use of that property by tenants, and there was ample housing supply, then is there a compelling reason for us to push for everyone to own a house? What wellbeing measurement would this help?

[–] luthis 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Owning a house (or having a significant piece of the mortgage paid off) gives you a safety net. It's dormant capital, something you can use to borrow against for much cheaper loans, something you can hand down to your kids, and something you can rely on during retirement years.

The measurement might be called 'financial stability' or financial freedom etc.

Having access to low interest loans is something that renters don't have.

[–] Dave 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If we had ample housing then there would be more supply than demand, and houses would cost closer to what it costs to provide rather that a race of who can pay the most. But the downside is there would be less to borrow against, because the "value" would increase at around inflation instead of based on speculation.

In that situation, you could rent, and put the money in a low fee broad based investment fund. The capital would grow (over a long time period) much more than inflation, offsetting loan interest to give a similar benefit. And at the end you can give your kids the stocks instead of the house, and in your retirement years you'd have more income from the stocks than what you'd be paying in rent.

I'm just propositing something that could be an alternative to buying. Even if not for everyone, I think we should be able to have a system that doesn't rely on young people buying houses from old people for much more than it cost them.