Why the U.S. Needs to Fall Out of Love With Homeownership

Darla said:
Yes we all know that a lot of stupid schmucks who read too many Horatio Alger stories and swallowed a lot of delusional horseshit, put themselves into deep debt during the housing bubble in order to mortgage homes they were then going to rent out to schmucks too stupid to read Horatio Alger, and "get rich"...and how they were wiped out.

The guys left standing will be the landlords. The rich get richer, anyone who isn't already isn't getting rich in this modern economy.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm. I'll tell you what I had in mine having invested in and managed single family homes for rent. Obviously when purchasing a home you do your best due diligence possible but there's no way to guarantee work won't be needed to be done during ownership. Any number of costly items can come up that you as the owner must pay to fix that don't add real value to the property. I'm not talking capital improvements such as upgrading the kitchen where you can then charge more rent (as well as add overall value to the home). I'm talking issues like plumbing or the furnace, items that are expected to work, that don't have corresponding appreciation that go with it. So getting positive rental income is no guarantee.

And yes market timing is important. Some areas have had flat real estate prices for years. We usually assume real estate will appreciate but that's not always the case.

So this idea that it's "DUH" that you automatically make money and become richer because you purchase investment property is not really so.
 
Currently Id recommend buying in South Florida or Tampa. Urban areas of North Carolina are good bets also.

In Florida stay away from Jacksonville. Also stay away from Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina.
 
Jarod said:
Currently Id recommend buying in South Florida or Tampa. Urban areas of North Carolina are good bets also.

In Florida stay away from Jacksonville. Also stay away from Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina.
Click to expand...

Buying for what investments or places families should settle down and live?
 
Big money said:
Who gets to define what constitutes "rich"?

Is there something wrong with being "rich"?

Does the liberal distaste for the "rich" extend to liberals who are financially comfortable, or are those folks exempt from self-loathing leftist economic class hatred?

Just asking.
Click to expand...

hording is unpleasant to see, but the horder loves it.
Greedy people resemble horders
 
Places where families should settle down and live depend wholly on personal preference. For me for families... Northern California, Tampa, Suburban North Carolina, Northern Virginia, New England but not Boston or NYC, or cities in the mid west other than Chicago.
 
cawacko said:
That I'm not following. How is that so?
Click to expand...

If you're paying rent, you're putting the money into the pockets of the guy who already had enough to purchase a property. Your money is making the mortgage payments on his property when it can be used instead on your own.
 
Jarod said:
Places where families should settle down and live depend wholly on personal preference. For me for families... Northern California, Tampa, Suburban North Carolina, Northern Virginia, New England but not Boston or NYC, or cities in the mid west other than Chicago.
Click to expand...

Ok, but that's not really being discussed here. The person who wrote the article argued that other countries that have lower percentages of home ownership have higher standards of living than the U.S.. I think it is an interesting discussion from a macro perspective but I don't know if the whole correlation equals causation thing is in effect here. He also compared cities within the U.S. using the same metrics but I don't really see housing as being the driver for the differences.
 
cawacko said:
I've always been a big believer in home ownership. It's part of the American Dream and communities with higher percentages of home ownership were stronger. I will say though in the last several years I've started to question my belief a little. Part of that is seeing the economic impact of our government pushing home ownership too far.

This article compares U.S. home ownership and overall economic performance with other countries. It also compares home ownership rates within U.S. cities and their overall economic performances.



Why the U.S. Needs to Fall Out of Love With Homeownership


"The most tangible cornerstone that lies at the heart of the American Dream, at the heart of middle-class life," Barack Obama declared in a speech this summer, is "the chance to own your own home."

Politicians and pundits across the spectrum regard homeownership both as the best investment a family can make and a measure of national prosperity. But a significant majority of Americans believe differently. According to a 2012 Pew survey, 86 percent of Americans now believe the key to a middle-class life is a "secure job," almost double the share (45 percent) who say the same about owning their home. To compare, seven out of ten respondents to a Time/CNN/Yankelovich survey back in 1991 said that homeownership was essential to middle class membership, while just one-third said that a white-collar job was required. Since 2004, the overall rate of homeownership in the U.S. has declined from 69.2 percent to 65 percent.

To help us better understand just how much we should — or shouldn't — lament the shift away from homeownership, my colleagues at the Martin Prosperity Institute and I took a closer look at the relationship between homeownership levels and the overall economic health. And what we found should make the President and politicians rethink their pro-homeownership stance.

The map above by the MPI's Zara Matheson shows the percent of the population that own their own homes across 41 nations, based on data from Pew which collected it from numerous sources. The Pew data cover 42 nations — all nations that members of the OECD and the European Union, plus Singapore. We excluded Iceland from the analysis based on missing data for other variables, giving us 41.

As it turns out, homeownership rates in the U.S. are relatively low in comparison to other nations. The U.S. ranks 33rd of these 41 nations, slightly below the Netherlands and just above France. Romania, Lithuania and Croatia have the highest levels of homeownership. Switzerland, New Zealand and Germany have the lowest.

The second map, also by Matheson, shows the level of overall economic development, measured as economic development per person for the same countries, based on data from the World Development Indicators. The map is nearly the opposite of the first one.
Countries with high rates of homeownership were significantly less economically productive.

Switzerland, which has the lowest rate of homeownership among the countries Pew studied, is one of the the world's richest and most advanced countries — on this map, an island of dark blue in a sea of green. At the other end of the spectrum, the string of less-developed Eastern European nations, with lower levels of GDP per capita, are also some of the countries with the highest levels of homeownership on the first map. The U.S. and Canada are green on both maps. They combine relatively high levels of economic development with relatively low levels of homeownership.

To get a better handle on this connection between property ownership and economic productivity, my colleague Charoltta Mellander ran a simple correlation analysis between homeownership and economic output (based on GDP) per person. The scatter-graph below plots the pattern. Though correlation is not causation, the trend is striking.


Less developed countries have consistently higher levels of homeownership, while more advanced nations combine higher levels of economic development with substantially lower levels of homeownership. (The correlation between the two is -.40 overall and it rises to -.58 when she removed outliers Singapore, Norway, Luxembourg and Switzerland). American political rhetoric tends to equate rising homeownership rates with strong economic development. Instead, the opposite is true. The rate of homeownership declines as nations get wealthier.

One reason for this may be because people in less developed nations have fewer options of where to put their money. In agrarian economies, land ownership is the basic source and measure of wealth. In more advanced capitalist economies, people have many more investment options. Many of the places with the highest rates of homeownership are in former Communist nations of Eastern Europe.

Lower rates of homeownership rates also appear to follow from urbanization. The scatter-graph below illustrates this, plotting homeownership against the level of urbanization measured as the share of the population that lives in urban areas (the data is also from the World Development Indicators). As people move to cities, they have more options for how to spend or invest their money, and renting is much easier and more common.

Homeownership is highest in the least urbanized nations — Romania, Croatia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Bulgaria. And it is lowest in the nations that are most urbanized — not only the U.S. but also the Netherlands, France, Japan, New Zealand, Germany, and South Korea. The correlation between homeownership and urbanization is also negative (-.37).

This is in line with my own research on U.S. cities and metros. Back in 2010, I noted in The Wall Street Journal that "cities and regions with the lowest levels of homeownership — in the range of 55 percent to 60 percent, like L.A., New York, San Francisco and Boulder — had healthier economies and higher incomes." Conversely, "cities with high levels of homeownership — in the range of 75 percent, like Detroit, St. Louis and Pittsburgh — had on average considerably lower levels of economic activity and much lower wages and incomes."

And numerous studies have found that excessive homeownership significantly distorts the economy, diverting investment away from much more needed areas like technology and knowledge.

Homeownership continues to make sense for many Americans. But for those whose income is limited or who are still building their careers, a house can be an anchor than limits their ability to move to where jobs are.

And as Yale economist Robert Shiller has noted, the real rate of return to owning a home has been close to zero for the past century, substantially less than the stock market. "Housing traditionally is not viewed as a great investment," he added. "It takes maintenance, it depreciates, it goes out of style."

Of course, I’m by no means advocating that we put an end to homeownership altogether and become a nation of renters. My hunch is a homeownership rate of between 50 and 60 percent is just about right; and that’s not too far from where the U.S. is now. But we can’t hide from the fact that excessive levels of homeownership — either among nations or metros — seem to be associated with lower levels of innovation, productivity and economic development.

I wholeheartedly concur with Columbia University economist Edmund Phelps (I quoted him in my book The Great Reset) when he says, "it used to be the business of America was business. Now the business of America is homeownership.” And, he adds, "America needs to get over its ‘house passion.'"


http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/09/why-us-needs-fall-out-love-homeownership/6517/
Click to expand...
Home ownership isn't necessarily always the best choice. For quite a few years in my career staying employed meant being able to relocte to some place else on relatively short notice. Being married to a mortgage would have been a big problem.
 
christiefan915 said:
If you're paying rent, you're putting the money into the pockets of the guy who already had enough to purchase a property. Your money is making the mortgage payments on his property when it can be used instead on your own.
Click to expand...

If I buy an investment home and pro forma $2,500/mnth in rent to cover the mortgage and market rent drops to $2k/mnth who is getting a better deal?

There's a reason individuals run rent vs. own scenarios before making a decision. To buy is not always the best option.
 
Rana said:
Good grief, the powers that be trying to take another cog out of the middle class machine. education, unions, now homeownership! Sigh
Click to expand...
I didn't see anything in here disparaging home ownership. This is an excellent point the author makes;

"Homeownership continues to make sense for many Americans. But for those whose income is limited or who are still building their careers, a house can be an anchor than limits their ability to move to where jobs are. "

I've done fairly well in my career. I've mostly earned more than the median income for someone with my educational background and experience but until fairly recently either remainng employed or taking advantage of opportunities for advancement often required relocating. Had I been married to a mortgage through a significant part of my career I would not have advanced as far as I have.
 
"Rich" gets a lot of interesting definitions. Most of the time, it's basically just anyone that has "more than me."

As to the OP, I'm starting to question the whole idea of home ownership. In the '90's and a bit beyond, it seemed like a no brainer. Now, it's turning into a real albatross for some.
 
cawacko said:
If I buy an investment home and pro forma $2,500/mnth in rent to cover the mortgage and market rent drops to $2k/mnth who is getting a better deal?

There's a reason individuals run rent vs. own scenarios before making a decision. To buy is not always the best option.
Click to expand...

Yes, like anything else the rent v. buy argument isn't based on only one issue. I only rented before getting married because I wanted to spend money on travel, not a mortgage.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Home ownership isn't necessarily always the best choice. For quite a few years in my career staying employed meant being able to relocte to some place else on relatively short notice. Being married to a mortgage would have been a big problem.
Click to expand...

Realistically, how many people are financially able to follow jobs? There are other reasons for anchoring yourself to a particular area, like family, friends, climate, etc.

We bought a home because it was cheaper than renting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top