> 1. Abolishing landlords is not the answer (I see a lot of people suggest this).
I am so baffled by this. Seems like a mental smokescreen for NIMBY homeowners to protect themselves from the realization that they are the problem.
If every landlord was murdered today and replaced with a homeowner, there would not be the slightest impact on either the home price crisis or its root cause, the artificial restriction in supply caused by NIMBY zoning and regulations.
In fact, the supply pinch would probably get worse. Big landlords can benefit from expanded supply if they own that expanded supply. Single-home homeowners see only the risk of disruption to their environment. A city full of single-home homeowners might never build anything, anywhere, ever again.
(Just in case anyone asks, I am not a landlord. I'd have to be a multi-millionaire to even contemplate it in my area.)
Living in EU. Please tell me what should I do with my money, so I won't starve when I'm on pension in 20-30 years? Current situation is, that my lifetime savings are being eaten by inflation due to rising wave of social benefits given to everyone in exchange for votes. Real estate is virtually only option, that does not require additional part-time work, in order to turn profit beating inflation.
I have some ETFs/stock too. However:
* lack of diversification seems unwise.
* volatility and risk seem to me to be higher on a stock market.
* taxation is approx twice higher on capital gains. Costs of investing on more mature markets, than local markets are not helping too.
* my children will need a place at some point. Giving them some option seems to be wise, given what's happening to real estate market (I see some irony in that statement, but when in Rome...)
In general I would much prefer to not deal with real estate, but it simply would mean a lot bigger risk of a few unpleasant decades at the end of life.
All well and good, but notice that you moved from "I need real estate to appreciate faster than inflation or my family will suffer" to "I'd prefer to have real estate as part of an optimal investment portfolio because I believe it will produce better risk-adjusted returns". We're not really talking about actual desperation here. We're talking about your desire to maximize your family's well-being.
If that's what you care about, it would be wise to consider the impact on society as well. Society doesn't do well when resources are only accessible to a wealthy elite, and a stunted society will hurt your childrens' future. So maybe it's not such a good idea for real estate to be a scarce, rapidly appreciating asset, if it leads to unaffordable housing and economic desperation for the masses, political instability, etc.
I'm not saying don't invest in real estate, only that the political conditions that make real estate a good investment may be bad for society at large.
I am so baffled by this. Seems like a mental smokescreen for NIMBY homeowners to protect themselves from the realization that they are the problem.
If every landlord was murdered today and replaced with a homeowner, there would not be the slightest impact on either the home price crisis or its root cause, the artificial restriction in supply caused by NIMBY zoning and regulations.
In fact, the supply pinch would probably get worse. Big landlords can benefit from expanded supply if they own that expanded supply. Single-home homeowners see only the risk of disruption to their environment. A city full of single-home homeowners might never build anything, anywhere, ever again.
(Just in case anyone asks, I am not a landlord. I'd have to be a multi-millionaire to even contemplate it in my area.)