Yeah, its all inequality. Most people are going to be renters forever in my hometown and the government has absolutely no plan to fix it. People will just be pushed farther and farther away from where they work and will have longer and longer commutes because it is impossible to pay to live close to work with the salaries they're making.

▲

aleph_minus_one 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Most people are going to be renters forever in my hometown and the government has absolutely no plan to fix it. People will just be pushed farther and farther away from where they work and will have longer and longer commutes because it is impossible to pay to live close to work with the salaries they're making.

[emphasis mine]

I somewhat disagree: at least during the COVID-19 times the government did have a plan to partially fix it: At that time there were a lot of discussions whether work from home will be there to stay or not.

If it would have stayed, that would have partially solved the problem (not for everybody, but for a substantial subset of people):

Since people can live at places where rent or the price of houses is much lower, companies can pay smaller salaries, but employees (after subtracting the cost of living) still have more money. In other words: both sides get their slice of the pie: employers can decrease salaries while employees still have more money.

Unluckily, when COVID-19 was over, companies decided they basically want people to come back to to office (working from home should be an exception).

This was the central reason why this plan failed.

▲

microgpt 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Renting itself isn't inherently the problem if you have very strong tenant rights. Imagine renting came with all the rights of owning except the money flowed differently (like a perpetual mortgage) - that'd be pretty okay, actually. It is within the power of a government to enable something like that.

▲

_puk 2 hours ago | parent [-]

But renting is a problem if there's no asset at the end of it.

Even if rents were capped at half what a mortgage for the same property is, you still are in a position that once the asset of the house is paid off the landlord now has an asset that earns income without labour.

And the inverse.

Regardless of what you earn (to a point, even into higher income brackets), if you do not put it into an asset that can house you, and you stop earning, you cannot live without reducing your overall capital.

So rental means a lack of opportunity to reduce your labour dependent income over time (important as you age), and a reduced ability to weather negative life events.

	▲	wqaatwt 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It can work (and did in some places in Western Europe for a while) if housing stock is mostly state owned and/or communal. Of course that introduces some other issues
	▲	microgpt an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Paying to consume something continually isn't inherently wrong. We do that with food. If you like, you could offset it with UBI.

▲

bluefirebrand 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Most people are going to be renters forever in my hometown and the government has absolutely no plan to fix it

This seems to be the plan basically everywhere though. Yes, some countries still have a ladder for average people to own property and find success, but the global trend seems to be that this possibility is shrinking for the vast majority of people

That's what happens when average people have to compete with real estate conglomerates for housing though