Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Homeownership is not what people cook it up to be. Metros with higher percentages of homeownership have less vibrant economies than those who have less.
I see that you 'youtube' crap is 40 minutes long. Did you listen to all of it?
And, what about the Founders of the great nation, who placed a premium on private ownership of land (instead of holding your property at the 'sufferance of the King"?)
I know many young people who don't aspire to be homeowners. It was the plan I followed, there was no other option in my mind, but apparently it's no longer the most important thing. I can see it, especially with employment taking some people all over the place every couple years or whatever. It's rare to stick to one job in one location for your entire life anymore.
My daughter has moved 3 times in less than 2 years in LA, where a simple job change can mean an additional hour+ on your commute time if you aren't flexable. And it was all within a 30 mile raduis.
I was thinking the other day, whats the problem with the housing market bottoming out? Whats wrong with houses getting cheaper and cheaper?
Did people who bought a Plymouth for 3000 dollars in 1929 complain about more people buying Model T's for a 1000? (Not sure of the actual cost, just an example)
Cars became cheaper and cheaper. Now, advancements have caused the price to increase. But honestly, materials and the construction cost, and time cost has gone down. Yet banks are charging 200,000 for a house that cost them only 50,000 to build.
Let the market bottom out, if you bought a home for 200,000 dollars, and its now worth 50,000 then thats your fault. Why should the government have to fix it?
Homeownership is not what people cook it up to be. Metros with higher percentages of homeownership have less vibrant economies than those who have less.
How do you judge this vibrant? Most of the towns I know that have very low home ownership rates have very high unemployments, very high crime, and usually look like their town can be bull dozed over and no one would notice.
What exactly is it you think creates this "economy"? The government checks most of them usually receive, or the unemployment and welfare checks which usually follow them?
How do you judge this vibrant? Most of the towns I know that have very low home ownership rates have very high unemployments, very high crime, and usually look like their town can be bull dozed over and no one would notice.
What exactly is it you think creates this "economy"? The government checks most of them usually receive, or the unemployment and welfare checks which usually follow them?
If you watched the video, you will hear the claims. Phoenix, Atlanta, Orlando, and Tampa have higher percentages of home ownership than Chicago, NYC, SF, and DC, yet these cities(urban cities) have lower unemployment.
If you watched the video, you will hear the claims. Phoenix, Atlanta, Orlando, and Tampa have higher percentages of home ownership than Chicago, NYC, SF, and DC, yet these cities(urban cities) have lower unemployment.
No, they picked random cities that have high government expenditures and then pretended that home ownership is the reason for low unemployment.
The excuses on your link is just as ridiculous. People who don't want to move have a greater tendency to take jobs they're not well suited for, which raises costs of production and lowers incomes for everyone.
ignoring the ridiculousness of this argument, this argument hinges upon one NOT MOVING.. Not home ownership. I know lots of people who move to get jobs and others who dont want to move, and they dont work.
Homeowners are more likely to impose zoning restrictions that inhibit economic growth.
Wrong again. home ownership areas have zoning restrictions to maintain the quality of the neighborhood, and they do this because the area is ALREADY DEVELOPED, not because of a lack of homeownership.
And finally, when people aren't willing to move, traffic congestion increases, in effect raising for everyone else the transportation cost of having a job and thereby "raising the attractiveness of not working."
This directly disputes the paragraph right above, because if zoning restrictions stop economic growth, then how can the traffic in the area increase? You cant shove more homes into a town than there are lots. You can however shove more apartments.
Furthermore, the "attractiveness of not working" due to congestion, is utterly ridiculous. Look at areas like Los Angelos where the average commute exceed 1 hour each way. Traffic in NYC couldnt get any more congested, but yet there is a very high number of individuals who both live, and work there.
No, they picked random cities that have high government expenditures and then pretended that home ownership is the reason for low unemployment.
The excuses on your link is just as ridiculous. People who don't want to move have a greater tendency to take jobs they're not well suited for, which raises costs of production and lowers incomes for everyone.
ignoring the ridiculousness of this argument, this argument hinges upon one NOT MOVING.. Not home ownership. I know lots of people who move to get jobs and others who dont want to move, and they dont work.
Homeowners are more likely to impose zoning restrictions that inhibit economic growth.
Wrong again. home ownership areas have zoning restrictions to maintain the quality of the neighborhood, and they do this because the area is ALREADY DEVELOPED, not because of a lack of homeownership.
And finally, when people aren't willing to move, traffic congestion increases, in effect raising for everyone else the transportation cost of having a job and thereby "raising the attractiveness of not working."
This directly disputes the paragraph right above, because if zoning restrictions stop economic growth, then how can the traffic in the area increase? You cant shove more homes into a town than there are lots. You can however shove more apartments.
Furthermore, the "attractiveness of not working" due to congestion, is utterly ridiculous. Look at areas like Los Angelos where the average commute exceed 1 hour each way. Traffic in NYC couldnt get any more congested, but yet there is a very high number of individuals who both live, and work there.
Trash..
So why do sprawled metros have dire economies? Can you explain that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Great Post!
