Protect your personal or business data by signing up for fully-featured free trial at backblaze.com/moneymacro

@Dogo.R

14 күн бұрын

Backblaze truely is the best. The alternative is carbonite but it isnt a public company. Backblaze is public which allows me to feel more secure that my backups are safe. Since I can see how much cash they have remaining on hand. Also backblaze allows for recovering files you accidentally deleted up to 1 year ago. Or recovering files that you end up saving after deleting something important in them. You effectively get a daily version history of files for up to a year. It also works with hardrive files like those that exist as part of WSL, meaning it works for developers too who develop using a hypervisored OS.

@Abu_Shawarib

14 күн бұрын

The link in the video description is not clickable, but here it is. 🤔KZread is acting weird

@PoliticalEconomy101

13 күн бұрын

You forgot two more theories: a) The Homevoter Hypothesis by William Fischel, and b) see the video entitled "Why Is the Rent So Damn High? The Real Reason Will Shock You"

@carkawalakhatulistiwa

13 күн бұрын

House to expensive for new family . Old rich people have 4 home As an investment. Increase house prices

@carkawalakhatulistiwa

13 күн бұрын

Easily prohibited from owning more than 2 houses can reduce house prices. With Thousand of rich people forced to sell their 3rd and 4th homes

In Singapore, the govt builds them.. offers the buyers a loan instead of the bank . Than enforce rules that you can't use it as an investment.. so to keep house affordable for ppl who need them to live not invest.

@ddj2010

13 күн бұрын

Singapore does a lot of things right - because it was fortunate to start that way. I lived in Singapore, rented in NYC and own in Canada. Landlord and bank lobbies in either countries would never let these see the light of day! On the other hand, we have much cheaper cars 😊

@xuedalong

11 күн бұрын

And also prevents all but the most insanely rich foreigners from buying homes with a 60% stamp duty. Yep. Six Zero. 😹

@TurnRiver

9 күн бұрын

This is false. Singapore is one of the faster appreciating markets for investment. It is only difficult for the newer investor, because it will be challenging to find cash flowing properties for cheap. Fundamentals are all the same. Large cities with dense urban populations have some of the most expensive and unaffordable real estate in the world. NYC, Hong Kong, London, and Tokyo are examples of this.

@OurLordandSaviorSigmar

8 күн бұрын

This is the correct way. Housing is a basic human need that should be kept away from speculation.

@TurnRiver

8 күн бұрын

@@OurLordandSaviorSigmar Needs vs Wants. What I keep hearing is that we NEED affordable housing where we WANT to live.

Regarding the IMF study at 16:10 , one thing missing from the analysis is that while interest was higher and home prices lower, those buyers from the 1980's were able to refinance their mortgages as rates dropped, decreasing their monthly expenses. Buying at a high price with a low interest rate will NEVER present a similar opportunity.

@alphamikeomega5728

13 күн бұрын

And the real interest rate was a lot lower than the nominal one, so if your income increased with inflation, it would be (relatively) more affordable. And before buying a house, you could deposit your money and be at the receiving end of the high nominal interest rates.

@ANEEAMA

13 күн бұрын

Because there is an inverse relationship between the two due to the increase in demand. However, demand can be decreased by limiting citizens to purchase one house and banning foreign residents to purchase houses.

@miketheneanderthal9490

13 күн бұрын

My parents took advantage of this. They struggled with their high payments with an 18% loan for several years, but then refinanced a couple times as interest rates went down.

@PelosiStockPortfolio

13 күн бұрын

The high interest/low price scenario has several other advantages. 1. The interest is what you write off on your taxes (this is huge). 2. It requires less time to accumulate the down payment (also huge, it sucks for younger people to need to save 150k before they can get in the game).

@petewilliamson2609

13 күн бұрын

Ah...good observation

The NIMBYs in Australia are the worst. The government wanted to build public transport in my city, a light rail to get from one side to the other. It would reduce the need for cars and give us the opportunity to build higher density. But NO. Everywhere you would see bumper stickers “NO LIGHT RAIL”. Why they’re opposed to it? I have no idea.

@mat3714

13 күн бұрын

Same here, we had a federal founding to foot half of the cost of a public transportation system but people got angry and asked for another bridge that won't be built instead......so we ended up with nothing ( aside the hundreds of millions and countless wasted hours on studies ) and my brain hurts.

@JamielDeAbrew

13 күн бұрын

In Australia NIMBYs are part of the problem. And there are many other parts too. Eg1 taxing property when purchased/sold. This discourages empty nesters from downsizing. That would add supply of rooms to the market. Removing this disincentive to moving would save the government on transportation infrastructure costs too. Eg2 the family home is exempt from government pension tests. This provides an incentive for empty nesters to stay in a larger house than they need. Eg3 tax advantages for workers to invest in land (including land with homes on it). Unfortunately this pulls investment away from productivity investment in business. Eg4 an economic system that relies on population growth to fund the aged pension and aged care. Eg5 infrastructure investment taking demand for tradespeople and materials - increasing the cost of building new homes And probably many other factors that I have missed.

@robgrey6183

13 күн бұрын

Because expanded public transport gives criminals access to decent neighborhoods. And public transit is where bums go to sleep, and certain demographics go to collect "reparations".

@robgrey6183

13 күн бұрын

Public transit gives cri*m*nals access to decent neighborhoods. Decent people don't want that.

@skyworm8006

13 күн бұрын

People are allowed to not want their neighbourhood completely changed, or in some cases destroyed and residents forced out, for infrastructure of debatable merit that they obviously don't want. Not to mention other, very suspect policies. To suggest otherwise makes you anti-democratic. You are blaming something that doesn't really exist, your fixation on 'NIMBYs' which is not actually a phenomenon in this country but something you imported from the internet as a fantastical ideological opponent. The term was created and fundamentally is about characterising locals having a say in what happens to where they live as somehow regressive, and that they should just shut up and let those in power, or corporations, do whatever. It's very telling that the term is originally and most commonly applied to neighbourhoods with a high standard of living, low crime, and strong community spirit (not to say you use it in this way though). i.e. neighbourhoods that are politically very self-determining. Who don't just accept abuses and mismanagement. Rather than about the merits of specific infrastructure. So perhaps try getting people on board, if the merits are truly clear, and not imposing a group that doesn't exist as a way of dehumanising everyone or explaining why something didn't happen when the real reason may be something else, like some bureaucrat just deciding not to? Or upon conducting studies, realising it wasn't a good idea?

All though a cheap house with a mortgage with a high interest rate and an expensive house with a mortgage with a low interest rate might me paying the same monthly payment. The first has more opportunities: 1. Refinancing when rates drop 2. Paying off your debt will instantly give you a high yield without a lot of risk.

@7fall

12 күн бұрын

Rates mean absolutely nothing, and serve to distract. It literally has no impact whatsoever, as it’s a percent x base, the base being price. 90% rate on a $10,000 house is much better than 1% rate on a $900,000 house. The only thing that matters, is the price that’s locked in.

@ginalley

11 күн бұрын

I'm no economist so I'm not sure if this is correct but for australia, house price to income ratio went from 3.5 in 1980s to 6+ today. Wouldn't this mean mortgages in the country would be harder to obtain, therefore muting the point posed by the IMF on mortgage repayments.

@Descriptor413

11 күн бұрын

The fact that we need low interest rates for things to be affordable is itself a massive red flag that things are going wrong. It means our economy has a very weak foundation, and massively inflates risk in a way that we may not be able to mitigate next time. We've been living beyond our means for decades while making raising the bar to enter into society so high that many aren't able to reach it. Something is going to have to give.

@samuela-aegisdottir

7 күн бұрын

Another thing is that banks don't lent you the whole amount, so you need to save some part of the price in advance. This is much easier when the price of the house is lower, you can save the money more easily and the mortage is then much more accesible to you.

@djri2984

3 күн бұрын

​@@7fall I think you get interest rates wrong. The rate is NOT calculated from price of the house but its percentage of how much your unpaid debt growths every year. If mortgage loan was $10,000 with 90% rate and loan term 30 years, your total payment would be $270,000 (it's less $900,000 but it's still more than you might expect).

I realized where the problem lies when I was buying my first apartment a few years back. On any apartment presnetation session there was me as 20-something old with my wife looking for a place to live and always competing with at least 2-3 other 40-50+ year olds looking for investment as their second-third apartment they can airbnb or rent. When young families have to compete with folks looking for an investment, that is not a good sign.

@gold707786

9 күн бұрын

Also means top of a bubble. When people are buying gold at Costco , gold prices are maxing out. 40-50 year olds should not be buying real estate at top prices because of their age. If I was 20ish I would stay renting( and get the wife on onlyfans to make extra cash). ''Your house dreams will happen faster'', you can argue back to her.

@richardbloemenkamp8532

7 күн бұрын

I'm indeed your 40-50+ category: secondary real-estate in and around big cities remains a stable investment with a reasonable yield being the rent plus possible appreciation. Stocks are often too volatile and too easy to tax in Europe because most voters do not own a lot of stocks, so many voter agree with high tax on stocks to tax the rich. If however regulators propose to put heavy taxes on secondary real-estate, it will impact too many secondary real-estate owners and they will not win elections. Housing prices may temporarily go down, which is fine. You still have the rent. New construction will hold and a few years later there will be a shortage again boosting the housing prices back up. Houses and land in and around big cities are scarce and will likely remain scarce over the long run as the world population keeps growing. Best is to not buy a the top of a bubble but for the rest you will be ok. If you do not have a lot of money you can start by buying a parking place of a student flat which you can rent to other people while at the same time you rent your own apartment.

@samuela-aegisdottir

7 күн бұрын

I agree and I also think that this is what they get wrong in te video. Investment appartments don't have to be empty. Middle class and upper middle class buyers ususally rent them, wither long term, AirBnB or to a company that rents it to others.

@MrCymix

6 күн бұрын

​@richardbloemenkamp8532 what makes you think you aren't "the rich", my guy. I'm in your group too. These kids are paying your mortgage(s) (if you have them) and your social security (if you can collect), and maybe your healthcare (if you qualify). And, what are they getting out of it? Probably not a lot more than poorer. Top it all off, social security is horribly insolvent so they pay in to something for which they'll never see a return. No wonder why they're upset.

@snark567

6 күн бұрын

Landlords should not be allowed to do that with homes. It's one thing to rent out a warehouse, it's another thing to buy out homes and rent them out. It's going to cripple the country.

Good overall summary. You are one of the few channels that try to tell the whole story. No click bait videos, just information. Please don't ever change!

@carlospesqueraalonso4988

11 күн бұрын

100% agree. That is why I follow this channel!

@Nobody-st7xh

9 күн бұрын

Check out Gary's Economics instead, he's much better

@DemolitionManDemolishes

8 күн бұрын

I find Dr. Joeri's videos are hit and miss. Like this video for example, I dont see any proper conclusion - we saw some data, discussed possible factors, thats it. To get some conclusions I would have to dig through the data myself. Also, after mentioning the IMF study, it would be nice to know what you personally think of it, do you endorse it, or you find some flaws.

@user-hx2wx7mk8n

6 күн бұрын

He is missing another big factor...mass immigration to Western countries.

@domepiece11

2 күн бұрын

Pppphhh, he blamed NIMBYs. Um, how about the corporate executives who created the Great Recession which created a shortage of new housing? Nah, let’s blame the middle class for everything, it’s more fun!

I agree that housing should be seen as more of a consumption good than a speculative investment. I’m commenting from Canada and became a homeowner last autumn. I live in a city with among the 25 least expensive housing prices and I wouldn’t consider housing “cheap” here. I would earn more money doing a similar job in Vancouver or Toronto but only 30-50% more, not 170-200% more, to compensate for the nearly 3x as expensive median home price. Certainly not 400% more to compensate for the fact that my SFH in a good location and with a basement suite would be worth about 5x as much in Vancouver.

@effexon

13 күн бұрын

sir, this is excellent summary of modern problems and urbanization. bringing in lot of immigrant workforce cannot fix this fundamental problem and city/public housing cannot build free houses below construction costs either. it comes down to distribute things also among cities better.

@markferguson7563

13 күн бұрын

The innate crux of why properties in Canada, and Australia - and, this is also true for England, as opposed to Britain; likewise with the US, too - is irrefutably due to one factor, and that is buttressed in large-scale immigration programs. This is then exacerbated with supply not keeping up with demand. So, all of the other aspects, which are espoused by the host and, indeed, with all those people posting comments regarding this, that or something else (although certainly having validity) is ostensibly just waffling on in a sea of self-serving semantics. Because in any of these jurisdictions that are fully dependent upon fueling their GDP’s via importing consumers, if enough properties aren’t constructed to cope with demand, then the dire side-effect is OVER PRICED properties. David Ricardo and, particularly with Henry George, were theorizing and espousing comments and, indeed, warnings on all of the negative nuances impacting real estate prices. Apropos to Henry George, way back in 1881 - two years after his book, ‘Progress and Poverty’ was published he told a senate hearing during the Garfield administration that: “The overt essence of why property values should in crease is a result of productivity, and not speculation.” Alas, here we are over 140 years after Henry George wrote ‘Progress and Poverty’ and, also, 207 years since David Ricado wrote the ‘Law of Rent’, we have politicians and captains of industry in Australia, Canada, Britain, and the US who missed reading their perspectives. But there is a far, far greater detriment to consider for all of these nations that have implemented large-scale, and, moreover, non-discriminatory immigration schedules. And that is to ponder the severe sociological impairments that will come to bear upon these societies being fractured on race, culture and, worst of all, religion. Quite simply, immigrant groups from non-Anglo/European and, more so, non-Christian cradles have been over the past 20-30 years that they have become culturally insular colonies/enclaves. Thus, it’s only a short time away before these groups organise against these societies in their own parliaments. To garner this pending horror most assuredly comes to pass in Britain, with hundreds of thousands of Muslims rallying in pro-Palestinian, and anti-Israel rallies from the middle of October.

@jarodarmstrong509

12 күн бұрын

Problem is you don't consume land, which is usually a significant portion if not the majority of a market price level for a house anywhere near a major economic center.

@robgrey6183

12 күн бұрын

@@effexon The "immigrants" who are coming in don't want to work. They want to squat, and Free S***.

@Descriptor413

11 күн бұрын

The fact that most people's only chance at making money is through owning a house is a massive problem in our economy. Simply owning a house doesn't produce any wealth, beyond maybe maintaining what's there. It doesn't expand our economy or increase our supplies. It's just pure speculation. And an economy built completely around that will by definition eventually fail.

Forgot to mention a major issue in Canada: the cost per average household wage. A little less than 30 years ago, the average cost for a two-person household used to be two times their combined wage. Now it is four times. The average Canadian wage did not follow the house cost increase, which means that even if the interest rates are lower than they were 30 years ago, you will need a bigger cash down to buy a house. As a result, the younger generation cannot leave their parents' house because they cannot manage to have enough cash down to have a good enough mortgage to buy their first home in the city that they live and probably work.

@markferguson7563

13 күн бұрын

The innate crux of why properties in Canada, and Australia - and, this is also true for England, as opposed to Britain; likewise with the US, too - is irrefutably due to one factor, and that is buttressed in large-scale immigration programs. This is then exacerbated with supply not keeping up with demand. So, all of the other aspects, which are espoused by the host and, indeed, with all those people posting comments regarding this, that or something else (although certainly having validity) is ostensibly just waffling on in a sea of self-serving semantics. Because in any of these jurisdictions that are fully dependent upon fueling their GDP’s via importing consumers, if enough properties aren’t constructed to cope with demand, then the dire side-effect is OVER PRICED properties. David Ricardo and, particularly with Henry George, were theorizing and espousing comments and, indeed, warnings on all of the negative nuances impacting real estate prices. Apropos to Henry George, way back in 1881 - two years after his book, ‘Progress and Poverty’ was published he told a senate hearing during the Garfield administration that: “The overt essence of why property values should in crease is a result of productivity, and not speculation.” Alas, here we are over 140 years after Henry George wrote ‘Progress and Poverty’ and, also, 207 years since David Ricado wrote the ‘Law of Rent’, we have politicians and captains of industry in Australia, Canada, Britain, and the US who missed reading their perspectives. But there is a far, far greater detriment to consider for all of these nations that have implemented large-scale, and, moreover, non-discriminatory immigration schedules. And that is to ponder the severe sociological impairments that will come to bear upon these societies being fractured on race, culture and, worst of all, religion. Quite simply, immigrant groups from non-Anglo/European and, more so, non-Christian cradles have been over the past 20-30 years that they have become culturally insular colonies/enclaves. Thus, it’s only a short time away before these groups organise against these societies in their own parliaments. To garner this pending horror most assuredly comes to pass in Britain, with hundreds of thousands of Muslims rallying in pro-Palestinian, and anti-Israel rallies from the middle of October.

Land value tax addresses all 3 points(except for zoning) I'm pretty surprised you didn't bring it up given how popular LVT is among economists!

@robgrey6183

12 күн бұрын

Tax, tax, tax. Then, tax some more. And then, wonder why things don't get better.

@stevecatpatrick8056

12 күн бұрын

Please tell me how we get to there from here without confiscating everyone's wealth? That's the thing I'm interested in is someone going into depth on the transition from our tax system to a true LVT. Because any assets purchased now and earlier would lose their value in a true LVT since ultimately it would reduce the value of the land close to zero once it reached its appropriate price. That's my understanding of the benefit of the LVT. However that means that the choice to move from our system to that system would effectively destroy the value and confiscate the wealth of anyone holding land. Which is probably why I would never come to pass, obviously it would take decades to slowly move to that system and the political pushback would be massive. If we want to do it not as a tool of redistribution but as being more economically efficient we would need some sort of way to compensate the people losing the value of their land. Likely in the form of some sort of tax credit so they could still get the value lost.

@grimaffiliations3671

12 күн бұрын

@@robgrey6183 Land value taxes are often seen as a replacement for most other taxes. So a land value tax actually reduce taxation

@grimaffiliations3671

12 күн бұрын

@@stevecatpatrick8056 wouldn't land owners be compensated with lower property taxes?

@ShumaBot

11 күн бұрын

​@@stevecatpatrick8056 But that IS the answer. And it should be.

As someone trying to buy their first home in Toronto, $100,000 for a studio apartment sadly sounded like a joke, as it would be much closer to $1,000,000 (even the absolute cheapest would be more than 300k). This was a great video for me though as there is so much unsubstantiated talk around why the prices are unaffordable to Torontonians, I really appreciate this channel's well presented theories and explanations

@ycplum7062

14 күн бұрын

I wonder if Mainland Chinese trying to park their money outside of China (can't blame them for that) is causing a housing bubble.

@sigrlami

13 күн бұрын

That was an example of a monthly payment calculation, so you can do specific calculations for your region easily by multiplication, and more importantly, compare mortgage rates between decades. It's hard to talk about Earth in general but there are many suggestions of a "bubble" in Canada, which stands out because the majority treat housing as an investment vehicle rather than a consumption good.

@pablomg91

13 күн бұрын

Exactly, seems like this discussion always ends in xenophobia here in Toronto.

@ANEEAMA

13 күн бұрын

For the UK, 20% of the population is 65+, and most of this group hold houses which are almost empty. The solution is to make such houses into two apartments with separate kitchens, so that one of their kids can stay with them without losing privacy. As average kids in the UK are 1.5 which is below replacement(2.01), it is waste of making more houses and destroying the green nature. Another solution is to shift retired citizens to the countryside and rent their city houses to their kids or others, which will increase their income as well rather than keeping a big empty house for one or two people.

@Gronmin

13 күн бұрын

​@@sigrlami It's not really a bubble as a bubble generally refers to speculation and similar factors temporarily driving up the price. What is driving up prices right now appears to be a lack of places to live, which is different than a bubble as it's a lack of supply which should gradually fall off in a healthy way and not pop like a bubble.

I grew up in the southern German state of Bavaria. My region suffers from the "Munich factor". Can't fully prove it empirically though. Still sometimes there's the joke that the Munich metropolitan area reaches almost to Prague these days. The costs of living in Munich are just ridiculous. Problem is sorta twofold here. The city wants to expand but the farmers on the urban fringe do not want to sell their land to the city government. Also the city government until quite recently was very strict on how high you were allowed to build but if you can't expand your city you have to build higher... Anyways. The unaffordability of Munich including it's fringes creates a lot of commuters and makes commuting areas more attractive for people because working there is still pretty attractive driving up rent and property prices almost 100 km around Munich.

@CzechShooter

8 күн бұрын

Ok Im from Prague so still withing the Munich metropolitan area 😀

If we assume crude oil and gas as being a necessity, as you need to get to work regadless how much it‘s gonna cost you then a 10% reduction in the crude oil supply won‘t lead to 10% increase of the price at the pump, but it might go up double. This is because people will pay literally every single extra dollar more to make sure that they are not among the 10% that won‘t be able to go to work anymore. Same thing with missing the houses for 1 or 2 more percent more people coming every year to live in big cities from smaller ones.

NIMBYs suck. They're mostly boomers. I am watching a housing task force for my city that's happening this year & the letters received so far against the ideas of rezoning & more dense housing are almost all boomer home owners & lifelong middle-age residents who want to keep others out. Here are some of the comments I saw in their letters, all from suburban boomers 1) more dense housing means more dog poop & traffic 2) it isn't the cities job to ensure everyone who wants to can live there 3) Young families only want SFR - they don't want townhomes, quadplexes, or duplexes - they want a large yard 4) a lot were upset about being called a vocal minority by one of the non-profit housing employees & they don't think of themselves as NIMBYs 5) More people = more potholes (silly when you think more dense, walkable areas probably means less cars),

@oldstix

9 күн бұрын

I'm a boomer and I agree. The homeowners in the burbs are horrified of crime and higher taxes. And of course, anybody who doesn't look like them.

@Stoneface_

2 күн бұрын

​@oldstix everyone should be horrified of crimes and higher taxes lol wtf

A real estate agent in a second tier city in Canada, Barrie, did some analysis on empty homes and found that 28% of all single family home listings were empty and 48% of all condo listings were empty. So, at least in one city, it is at extreme levels and this really does look like a purely speculative market.

@andresgarciacastro1783

14 күн бұрын

Yet the 2,4% of empty chinese houses are called (ghost cities).

@pigsnoutman

14 күн бұрын

Listed homes are likely to be empty, because they are on sale.

@TimothyCHenderson

14 күн бұрын

@@pigsnoutman Not really. Growing up, we moved 8 times over the course of about 20 years. We lived in our homes while they were listed. If houses are sitting empty while being listed, it usually means they were investment homes. The new development behind us has a whole row of these houses. As soon as they were built (before the sod went in), they had for sale signs on them and sat empty for months (three out of the 6 are still for sale). Drive through a new development near you and you'll see the same phenomenon. For sale signs on newly built houses that no one has lived in yet. These are investment properties meant to turn a profit between the time of purchase and build (which has grown significantly due to labour and materials shortages).

@olafsigursons

14 күн бұрын

@@TimothyCHenderson Anecdote is not data set.

@RJKYEG

14 күн бұрын

Thanks for sharing that, it's very interesting. My theory is that the throttled rate of development underlies the housing market speculation. If supply keeps going up, the idea that the property you own will net you a good return at resale becomes less promising.

mortgages, monopolies and of course zoning rules are the things that most of the times are suffocating around my country

I think you should have also looked at rent in this video. The canadian city i lived for years in had fairly flat rent rates for a long time. In the last 7 years they have more than doubled. The city centre has vast surface level parking lots which could be towers (based on zoning). A few years ago large parts of the city were up-zoned. With recent interest rate hikes housing costs have come down, because people couldn't afford mortgages. But that has increased pressure on rents. Renters are finding it increasingly difficult to save enough for the down payment. It was a good video.

@madskittls

13 күн бұрын

I think you also miss a lot by having such a wide lens on the issue. Even country by country, you run into vast differences between housing markets in NYC and Cleveland/Ft Lauderdale.

@Snake369

13 күн бұрын

can confirm. southern ontario housing has tripled in the past 20 years, doubled in the last 7-10. Rent has at least doubled in the past 10.

@SteveBluescemi

13 күн бұрын

Agreed. House prices vary with interest rates and other factors; with rent prices all those factors are included.

@Line49Design

12 күн бұрын

He talks about rent at the 7 minute mark

@hansverbeek822

12 күн бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/Yo2cmMqTgafNoto.html

"Houses are more affordable averaged over 40 countries". Yeah I don't live in 40 countries. I live in a country where the stamp duty (tax paid to purchase a house) on my house was the same as the purchase price of my parents house, which was bigger than mine, in the same suburb.

@gregoryturk1275

5 күн бұрын

Awesome

Wish the video touched a bit more on how exactly zoning laws worked

@iamagi

11 күн бұрын

Likely differ to much to be useful to a global audience

@purelizardmilk6598

9 күн бұрын

The problem is theyre extremely specific to the locality. Other than the specifics, all you can generally say about zoning is stuff like "areas zoned exclusively for single family housing vs mixed use or high density housing". That's a whole different topic honestly

I think you miss something in your discussion of the NIMBY phenomenon - I agree that the actions of individual NIMBYs might produce a collective action problem, as you said. But the wider problem is that homeowners directly benefit from a housing shortage, because the value of the property they already own keeps going up. Society is now divided between those who own property, and those who do not. One group wants prices to go up, one wants them to come down. Which one holds the most political power?

@henriksaarno1311

8 күн бұрын

You have a really good point there

@DemolitionManDemolishes

8 күн бұрын

I found this whole NIMBY point weak if not outright dishonest. There is an easy way to avoid this - build somewhere else. There is plenty of space for that. Instead they just want to destroy existing communities for a quick buck.

@antoniocruz8083

8 күн бұрын

​​​@@DemolitionManDemolishesYour view is exactly the Nimby's view, build someplace else and there is lots of space. First, someplace else also has Nimbys and second, space is only available very far away from centers, shopping areas, only in difficult terrain, swamps, and in europe it just simply doesn't exist. Nimbys will simply have to share their area, hopefully with houses, not apartments. Actually in some countries, like here in Portugal, there are no Nimbys because courts are slow, people have little power and money talks to politicians. There is here a housing crisis because only millionaire housing is built, where the big profit is. Low income people are living 10 per apartment. Dangerous future.

@DemolitionManDemolishes

8 күн бұрын

@@antoniocruz8083 Well, your own comment disproves that NIMBYs are the problem. Like you said, in Portugal there are no NIMBYs, yet there is no affordable housing. So the issue must be something else. Im not a NIMBY myself, but in this particular case I sympathise - they bought their houses under one set of rules, and now being forced to accept a worse set of rules (which wont even solve the issue like we established above). Regarding the place for new buildings - lack of "free" space to build is not actually the issue. In fact, even in places like Luxembourg there is enough space to build few high-rise complexes. The actual issue is that most of people (including "poor" people) don't want to live there. That's also why China has an issue with ghost towns - they build whole new towns, but nobody wants to live there. This means people would rather spend higher portion of their monthly income, than move out. Btw, you wrote "simply have to share their area, hopefully with houses, not apartments" - that's the thing though, Joeri is talking about building apartment complexes in places where there used to be houses. Right now you cant just buy some old houses, demolish them, and build few sky-scrappers. This is blocked by zoning laws. So developers want to change these laws, and NIMBYs push against it.

@ronaldderooij1774

7 күн бұрын

I am a house owner, my mortgage is ending next year. But I fail to see how I profit from increasing value of my house. I live in it. It is not liquidity. My son will profit after I die, but that won't help me. In fact, many taxes are based on house value, so I pay more tax when my house increases in value.

You did not manage one of the main drivers of increased demand, that no one seems to talk about. That is, significantly fewer people are getting married, and the average age for marriage is much higher than in previous decades. This means where in the past one house or apartment was needed for a man and woman starting in their early 20’s, now for those same 2 people, 2 houses or apartments are needed until their late 30’s, or even throughout their lives. This nearly doubles the demand for housing while supply is restricted. Also, front yards. The worst thing in the world. Seriously.

I live in southern germany in a very exensive city. Worked as a landscaper for around 8 years - got to know sooo many NIMBYs. My favourite one bought a huge peace of land sitting on the side of his own huge peace of land (together almost an hectar in THE best area of living) and whait for it .... Put then pots with tomatoes on it, for which i had to install an automated irrigation because they were sitting so f..ng far away from his mansion. Later he bragged about wanting to put a tiny house on it. This happened after there was some pressure by our communal government on nimbys. What the tiny house meant: lowest possible investment (with high returns regarding rent prices in my city), while - most importantly -still blocking the land for serious development. So no good deed at all (he justified by wanting to make minimal impact on the environment - did i mention his mansion and his big cars?). Called him out on this bs, he became incredibly defensive. Definetly worth losing him as a customer, haha.

@abcdfg4281

8 күн бұрын

Gross, of course rich people only invest for themselves and don't mind squeezing the market for profits even if people go homeless

@rutessian

5 күн бұрын

What an ass! How dare he choose what to do with his own property! The community should decide. Everyone in town should gather up and vote on what happens with his land. Just because you own something doesn't mean you have any right to do with it as you please.

@Stoneface_

2 күн бұрын

You don't have the right to tell him what to do with his own property. That's not your business. He has the right to do whatever he wants with it. He should get another landscaper and leave you.

@Stoneface_

2 күн бұрын

​@@rutessianhaha ikr. This "landscaper" has no right to tell anyone what to do with their own property.

The NIMBY issue is rampant where I live - they gang up legally with HOA's , zoning and building permits to preserve property values. It turns you can get someones attention very easily with a story that has their home value dropping.

@brimbles4999

14 күн бұрын

i think when you understand the fact ppl already have put a lot of monetary investment into their home with the promise they can sell it for retirement you can understand the fear of building new homes with the idea their home value will lower, the question is how can we involve current home owners in the building of new homes without destroying their retirement plan which i dont think we should take away with them. i think there could be a solution found that helps both parties, maybe a system that gives home owners in the area partial "bond" type owner ship over new properties in their area? maybe even a co-operative system where ownership is shared in the areas new transit stops are built, leading to more businesses and homes around those key areas where instead of push back we now have home owners begging for new developments in their backyard

@PedroPrego

14 күн бұрын

​@@brimbles4999bs

@Allaiya.

14 күн бұрын

100%. My city is doing a housing task force and were warned about a loud vocal minority pushing back & oh, that set off a ton of letters by boomers saying they weren't a minority.

@enclave6285

14 күн бұрын

@@brimbles4999 As a homeowner, I will be the first to say I have NO right to enforce zoning restrictions to benefit my retirement prospects. I bought 1 house, I don’t have the right to make others homeless and broke by trying to stop more from being built.

@enclave6285

14 күн бұрын

And I certainly don’t have the right to an ownership stake in land I didn’t buy.

The evolution of the house in the corner was a nice little detail

@MoneyMacro

14 күн бұрын

and a tasty detail :)

In the last 3 years of renting here in Western Australia, my rent has gone from 600 to 730 a week. The house itself has gone from 750-800k to 1.1mill. It's ridiculous, but like anything, the bubble will pop, maybe lol

@leonhenry4861

8 күн бұрын

Not if the supply is kept low. Why do you think the governments purposely keep lo amount of homes being built

@windwaker0rules

6 күн бұрын

didn't you watch the video, its not a bubble its just "lack of supply"

@DjDmt

6 күн бұрын

@@windwaker0rules all supply shocks create a bubble, doesn't matter what market you're in. When the time comes when there is more supply than demand, that's when the bubble pops.

@windwaker0rules

6 күн бұрын

@@DjDmt Well considering our market is used for money laundering the demand is basically infinite. Which is why you can find empty properties to squat in all over the place, i have no idea how this channel got a figure about how many empty properties we have when no one has ever done research on the topic.

@DjDmt

6 күн бұрын

@@windwaker0rules the empty properties figures come from the census, done back in 2021. The figure is debatable though because of covid lockdowns, some people were living at other peoples houses etc, but yes, there are a lot being bought by investment firms and foreign investors. When we head into a recession and people start losing their jobs there will be a correction of sorts.

I was just thinking I haven’t seen a video from you in a while. Thanks for another great analysis

I just read an article how Vienna in Austria kept their house prices and rents so low, the simple solution: the city build a huge part of houses themself - this while profit is limited and all profit must be used for new buildings... And about 50% of the houses have to be rent to low income people. And to make sure no ghettos start out of this, it needs to be mixed with people of other incomes... So the goal is not to put all poorer people in area, but always try to mix them, this is most times a good way to prevent ghettos from forming.

@xXdnerstxleXx

13 күн бұрын

Yep, that is pretty much always the key. In a new suburbia, slap down a few appartment complexes here and there, maybe setup shops around it and you have already much better cities. You know... the thing that would naturally happen if we had no city "planning". What we currently have are idiotic made up divisions.

@ArawnOfAnnwn

12 күн бұрын

This is what Singapore has been doing for decades. It's also part of their effort to combat mono-ethnic ghettos arising too, as their policy also mandates maintaining a certain ratio of mixed ethnicities in all neighbourhoods.

@robgrey6183

12 күн бұрын

Vienna didn't build anything. They expropriated the wealth of those who actually produce something, and used it to pay other producers to build housing. The role of the Vienna Government was merely redistributive. Their means was force.

@ArawnOfAnnwn

12 күн бұрын

@@robgrey6183 Found the Austrian (economist).

@-TheUnkownUser

11 күн бұрын

@@ArawnOfAnnwn Nah, more like the economist cope champion. These people can’t accept that their fairy tale is bs.

This video is incredible, thank you for making it. I’ll definitely send it to people. Have you considered doing a video on Land Value Taxes?

@lmao4982

14 күн бұрын

It's not really a policy-focused channel beyond central bank stuff, but illustrating the relationship between land rents and speculation would be nice.

@JamielDeAbrew

13 күн бұрын

@@lmao4982land value taxes could incentivise more efficient use of land. Also more efficient use of the resources that made any building on the land and even the labour used to make the building on the land. There’s a cafe near me that was open typical cafe hours for my city (morning and lunch). Another business organised to share the space, and run their own dinner business. Imagine if more spaces did this sort of thing. Rent could be spread across fewer transactions.

I think another factor you need to look at is the lack of new rental units which forces those who would prefer to rent into the purchase market. You touched on this a bit when mentioning the push-back against high density units from NIMBYs, but very often these days those high density units are condos for purchase, not rentals.

@pablomg91

13 күн бұрын

This is one of the reasons why rent control can make the market worse for newcomers.

@nunyabidness3075

13 күн бұрын

Owners are rarely worried about condo developments unless they really are inappropriate. What people don’t want are people much outside their demographic becoming attracted to their area, and they do not want to worry about the ownership and management of large rental properties not being good neighbors. Finally, rental units have a bad habit of turning into subsidized units, and no one wants the government involved in their area. We bought a place two blocks from a section 8 housing complex. Before Covid, it was basically an old folks home. In fact, that’s what most people thought it was. After Covid, it became something akin to an unsupervised halfway house with parolees, addicts, and mental health patients who loitered constantly. All male between 18 and 45. Needless to say, it changed the character of the neighborhood from quiet residential families and retirees who all said hello to locked doors and empty houses. Fire and police are there weekly, now.

@jasper8291

12 күн бұрын

Renting a house/appartment is probably only a good idea if you are a student and dont make enough money to get a mortgage for a house. Please correct me if I'm wrong

@nunyabidness3075

12 күн бұрын

@@jasper8291 There’s some good vids on that question, and a formula that can help you decide. I made a lot of money off of my personal homes. It’s like I never paid to live in them. OTOH, one of the most financially successful people I’ve ever known never bought real estate, and always rented.

Also the globalisation of the housing market. It used to be Parisians lived in Paris, and maybe a handful of hardcore, dedicated expats. Now every wealthy person in China, India, Turkey, Dubai, you name it wants a pied a terre there, or in NYC or London, etc. Add that with so many apartments being converted to Air bnbs,.

#3 - Low mortgage rate to affordability conclusion is wild. Yes, monthly cost is lower but AFFORDABILITY.. well you need to consider "Cost to (income - other living costs) ratio " I think . Low monthly payment as affordability is something a car dealer salesperson would say.. lol

@Yaotzin86

14 күн бұрын

That would make housing affordability decline if there was, say, a food cost crisis. How is that helpful? It would just misinform people about the nature of the problem.

@Danji_Coppersmoke

14 күн бұрын

@@Yaotzin86 I am not sure I understand your comment. Maybe I should clarify that if the number "( Cost of Housing / (Income - other living cost) ) " is higher, it becomes less affordable. So if food cost more and everything else the same, housing affordability goes down since you have less money to pay for.

@thelight3112

14 күн бұрын

Yeah lol, it's like saying a $70k SUV is "affordable" because the dealer will finance it over 8 years.

@shane_rm1025

13 күн бұрын

It is literally a factor in whether a person can afford it or not. Unless you're buying cash, but how many working people buy houses with cash?

@xXdnerstxleXx

13 күн бұрын

Yeah the definition is just plain stupid. It says that since interest rates are low, mortgages are now affordable. That is BS. That part of the price moved into the asset price. Higher asset price, more interest to pay, just not relative to the price. I'd love to see expensive mortgages again. They would drive down prices by a lot.

Recommend looking at UK or Ireland. I work in planning and have worked in modelling housing demand in the past. We use factors including 1. internal migration. 2. external migration. 3. household size trends. 4. household formation. 5. birth / death rate. We've known in the UK since the 00's that HUGE numbers of new houses were needed. External immigration has been even higher than predicted. Household formation, a bit less. Ofc nowhere near enough were built. Add speculation, NIMBY factor etc. and its a disaster. But at the bottom is supply/demand.

Going off the Gold Standard in 1971, easy credit, endless money printing, and mass immigration and a collapsing home building sector will do it every time. Greetings from Australia!

In Australia, Negative Gearing is a major culprit. When they tried to get rid of it, house prices went down 20% and they repealed the law

Thank you for your presentation. 👌

Most comprehensive study I've seen in a while about the topic.

Great work. Thanks for narrowing down the plethora of theories (most of which are post-hoc justifications) to a set of actually decent ones... And of course the anwer to which one causes what we're seeing is the usual "yes, all of the above"

You’ll own nothing, but be happy.

@PraveenSriram

3 күн бұрын

Well said 😊

@hrthrhs

2 күн бұрын

yeah but there's still apartments and townhousing and other types of homes that aren't a house, which in Australia anyway, are still cheap enough for a single person to buy by their 30s for sure.

*The current state of the economy is unduly difficult for most millennials, myself included. We've seen major increases across the board for rent, food and utilities; they are at least twice as high as a year and half ago. Talking about money,*

@marier.sherman

4 күн бұрын

A wise person must know that in order to build success, they must invest wisely and have the proper knowledge or guidance in the financial market.

@Karen.s989

4 күн бұрын

You're absolutely right, to be a successful in life required not only hard work but awareness and sometime opportunity at the moment, investment remains the best way to start.

@Andyholt

4 күн бұрын

I agree with you. Investment is the key to sustaining your financial longevity. And not just any investment but an investment with guaranteed return.

@SegunSpiff

4 күн бұрын

Exactly and many of us don't know where to invest our money so we invest it on wrong place and to the wrong people

@anitaj.bartley

4 күн бұрын

*Obviously talking about successful investment, I know I am blessed if not I wouldn't have met someone who is as spectacular as mrs ava Kimberly*

Always high quality video and content. Thank you.

Great video! I loved the concept of the three competing theories.

Great video, I have done quite a bit of research on this and I agree with your conclusion. Restrictive zoning and obstacles to building (NIMBYs) are the key issue with the current housing market. The other factors certainly play a role as well though.

Large corporate investors buying up all the housing stock and raising rent (over 67,000 units in Atlanta alone). NIMBYs who block any new housing in areas people want to live and also block increases in density. Those are the big reasons

@krissp8712

14 күн бұрын

Yeah that does line up with all three of the points at 1:16 tbh.

@heldercaze6333

14 күн бұрын

Have a good video explaining this in: how money works.

@Yaotzin86

14 күн бұрын

Large corporate investors are not remotely "buying up all the housing stock". The real estate market is gigantic and dominated by homeowners.

@bandqpine1690

14 күн бұрын

@@Yaotzin86 last quarter up to 25% were purchased by large investors, and this doesnt even include small investors who are wealthy that own between 2 and 15 properties, of which there are millions of these types of landlords

@scpatl4now

14 күн бұрын

@@Yaotzin86 The 3 biggest companies in Atlanta own 20% of all housing stock...all of it. I find that to be problematic since they outbid first time owners, and they are also driving up prices by taking homes for sale out of circulation and into the rental market where they have been shown to collude and raise rents.

Good to see a new upload!

Looking sharp, Joeri! Thanks for another great video :)

Love the channel and topic. Thank you! Perhaps not understanding the difference between monthly payment and total cost explains some of the concern about dangerous lack of financial education among consumers. Fwiw, the ratio between the cost of the house and a consumer's savings and/or annual income is why some near us haven't sold or bought... that delta seems to be higher today than it's been in the past, and that seems like a metric that ought to move in a more narrow range unless scarcity or one of these other factors is a confounder..?

@markferguson7563

13 күн бұрын

The innate crux of why properties in Canada, and Australia - and, this is also true for England, as opposed to Britain; likewise with the US, too - is irrefutably due to one factor, and that is buttressed in large-scale immigration programs. This is then exacerbated with supply not keeping up with demand. So, all of the other aspects, which are espoused by the host and, indeed, with all those people posting comments regarding this, that or something else (although certainly having validity) is ostensibly just waffling on in a sea of self-serving semantics. Because in any of these jurisdictions that are fully dependent upon fueling their GDP’s via importing consumers, if enough properties aren’t constructed to cope with demand, then the dire side-effect is OVER PRICED properties. David Ricardo and, particularly with Henry George, were theorizing and espousing comments and, indeed, warnings on all of the negative nuances impacting real estate prices. Apropos to Henry George, way back in 1881 - two years after his book, ‘Progress and Poverty’ was published he told a senate hearing during the Garfield administration that: “The overt essence of why property values should in crease is a result of productivity, and not speculation.” Alas, here we are over 140 years after Henry George wrote ‘Progress and Poverty’ and, also, 207 years since David Ricado wrote the ‘Law of Rent’, we have politicians and captains of industry in Australia, Canada, Britain, and the US who missed reading their perspectives. But there is a far, far greater detriment to consider for all of these nations that have implemented large-scale, and, moreover, non-discriminatory immigration schedules. And that is to ponder the severe sociological impairments that will come to bear upon these societies being fractured on race, culture and, worst of all, religion. Quite simply, immigrant groups from non-Anglo/European and, more so, non-Christian cradles have been over the past 20-30 years that they have become culturally insular colonies/enclaves. Thus, it’s only a short time away before these groups organise against these societies in their own parliaments. To garner this pending horror most assuredly comes to pass in Britain, with hundreds of thousands of Muslims rallying in pro-Palestinian, and anti-Israel rallies from the middle of October.

A factor for Germany and possibly Europe: When my grandparents both built their own house, they had to built a second living unit inside the house for state subsidies. So you had a 2 party house which is now lived in by 1 party. Or my uncles house; once 3 parties, now just one. The rising of household wealth led to consolidation within houses, so less people are living in more space. At the same time 5 students share a flat in Berlin.

@ImaskarDono

8 күн бұрын

I doubt so. Europe has almost twice lower living space per person than the USA.

@hpenvy1106

8 күн бұрын

@@ImaskarDono Europoors have 112 people living in 1 square kilometer. USA has 37 people per square kilometer. So of course we have to share less space.

Being from Toronto and hearing some of the issues behind new housing development even on empty land, one other factor to consider in the overall price of homes isn't just the number of new homes being built, but the rate of change in new home construction. What I mean to say is that up until recently the municipal governments are used to a certain amount of new home construction every year and can accurately forecast city utility usage and budget accordingly through taxation and permit fees. With Canada on a drive to import 1m new people into the country every year (and most settling into the big city centres such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver) the municipalities are overwhelmed not just with current service expansion today, but also the sudden "acceleration" in the rate of new builds. This means unpredictability, risk, and the need to spend far more and grow services far faster than can be accurately forecast. Hence, if your municipality used to predict the need for a new water filtration system that will service the community needs over the next 7 to 10 years, now the forecast is that such a plant will need to be much larger to cover the 7 to 10 year time span and current taxpayers must finance those costs (and risks going forward) with today's tax bills and permit system. The overall increased rate of expansion and risk is resulting in a much higher rate of taxation for financing this growth and associated risk.

Love your videos! I especially love that you include data visualizations to back up any claims you are making. But, I do have one suggestion that for your line plots showing changes over time with three categories, instead of just showing the country flags next to each line if you could put a border around the specific country with the colour you assigned to it. I found it was difficult to tell sometimes which colour was which country at a glance. Thanks again for this wonderful content!

Nice to see NZ be mentioned at 7:00 , very interesting result! I had no idea that had happened with Auckland density zoning.

@Cotswolds1913

14 күн бұрын

Yea now you can find multi-unit buildings on the same street as single family homes, it’s amazing.

@MRJP

13 күн бұрын

Some economists doubt whether the success is as big as presented, as rents prices go in cycles. While building applications have gone up, electricity connections seem to stay the same, leading to the question whether more homes are actually being released to the market in Auckland. In addition, by only looking at prices, it hides the size of the house being rented/sold. While I think there is some truth to NIMBYism hypothesis, it is also an idea developers like to push, as it allows them to gentrify and increase the value of their land.

@laurencefraser

13 күн бұрын

@@MRJP The NIMBY issue also routinely contributes to excessive costs, or outright failures, of public transport plans in many places. It's not the only problem, but it's a provably fairly large contributor.

@MRJP

13 күн бұрын

@@laurencefraser No one is argueing NIMBYism is desirable. The point is that the evidence that NIMBYism significantly increase house prices and zoning laws changes improve affordability is not very convincing, while Joeri presents it basically as the strongest contender by presenting it as the general mechanism behind 'construction failure', ignoring the evidence against this theory.

@lewiswood1693

13 күн бұрын

Too bad NACT immediately removed the law labour put in that made the new zoneing rules be even broader in Auckland and apply to other city's. Their new policy allows city's to continue to kick the can down the road and has caused house prices to go up and rent prices to surge in response.

Biggest problem is that houses are expensive in urban areas and almost free in rural areas which makes avarage house price data almost useless

@shauncameron8390

13 күн бұрын

Because urban areas have limited but valuable land. Rural areas are affordable because hardly anyone wants to live there unless they're wealthy and not in need to find a job to support themselves.

@JamielDeAbrew

13 күн бұрын

Has the ability for some people to work remotely reduced this difference? Taxpayers should want people (who don’t work remotely) to live closer to their work. Otherwise taxpayers will have to pay for more transportation infrastructure (be it additional road lanes or more public transport capacity)

Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this informative content cheers Frank 😊

Such a great video. Totally agree with your analysis. Nice that you have so much proof. Going to share it with family. So they are smarter about it too.

I’m surprised you didn’t discuss first time home buyers!

Miami builds lots of apartments and sold as investments. These buildings sit empty and at night are like black holes in the skyline.

@bandqpine1690

14 күн бұрын

YEP! ive seen this in many cities myself, australians are realizing and complaining of this too

@LTEAndroid

13 күн бұрын

Yup I've lived in Orlando and now South Florida. I see a lot of new construction just for them to end up mostly vacant and charging $2500+ a month it's sad

@JamielDeAbrew

13 күн бұрын

Sitting empty is so wasteful. A waste of the land and the depreciating building on the land. Even an inefficient use of the building materials and labour that made the buildings. A vacancy tax would help.

@rupertvass8793

11 күн бұрын

@@JamielDeAbrew yeah even if there aren't many vacancies say 2% it would do no harm (it costs nothing to do) and people say it's only 1 or 2 % of houses are vacant but when there are hundreds of thousands to millions of houses in a city it adds up to being a large amount eg: if there are 500k houses and 2% are vacant that is 10k homes being vacant

I like your take on the house as asset versus consumption good and believe the study at 16:10 only makes sense as an asset. My perception in Canada is that housing has become more unaffordable on a day-to-day basis i.e. if housing costs in the 1970s consumed 25-33% of the pay package, now that ratio has increased significantly... thank you; wonderful presentation.

In the Condo market in Ontario, we have an additional issue. Many of the buildings that have a high number of empty units for sale also are older buildings with higher fees. This tends to cause buyers to gravitate instead toward newer buildings with lower fees. The result is that those older buildings tend to sit on the market for a lot longer. Most freehold single-family dwellings that are not condos do not have that fee built-in and instead must be estimated by the purchaser and they often assume that the maintenance can be pushed down the road.

*Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry into the Cause of Industrial Depressions and of Increase of Want with Increase of Wealth: The Remedy* (1879) by Henry George #2 best selling book of the 1890s worldwide. LVT would have made this all a non-issue. Instead we got property taxes, because the only ones with more influence than capitalists are landlords.

I think Peter Boelhouwer makes a great point. It’s short term policy’s that contribute aswell. Ultimately you need more places to live.

Great video Joeri, congratulations!

There are a lot of small 4-5 story apartment buildings in Europe. With a commerce on the first floor. They're extremely comfortable - you have a nice large apartment in a district with small commerce (coffee, pizzas, barbershops, etc.). They eat much less space. And together with good public transportation you may have a nice cozy, comfortable and efficient city. Both extremes (single family homes and huge high-rise apartment buildings) are awful.

I am going to go with it's a combination of a lot of differing factors. It would also have been interesting to have seen a comparison of housing as a percentage of household income.

Effectively, infinite demand when prices are expected to go up by people with access to credit, getting fresh new money in the form of loans triggering a self fulfilling prophesy on the part of the class with access to credit. Housing can either be housing or an investment. It can never be both except for a short time.

@shane_rm1025

13 күн бұрын

Corn is still food even though corn futures exist. I don't see what makes housing any different.

@personzorz

13 күн бұрын

@@shane_rm1025 If you got the entire population to buy corn as their retirement investment because the price was sure to go up, and everyone and anyone buying long corn futures regardless of if they were involved in the use of corn, it wouldn't be food for long,.

@Robert-un3cf

12 күн бұрын

@@shane_rm1025 Commodities are generally terrible investments.

I watched my neighborhood- where pricing had been fairly stable for decades- become unaffordable overnight. It took about three years sum total- with property prices doubling every year. What I personally witnessed happen was a rich to buy and flip- or purchase investment property to rent at increasing rates. Families were aggressively outbid by investors offering cash. A small bungalow home that the was purchased five years earlier for $200,000 was sold to me for $475,000 (the best deal in the city at the time, but an average price for a nice home I Los Angeles over the previous several years)- identical homes in the neighborhood the following year sold for $800,000 +. Two years after that, they were going for over a $million. The same apartment I rented for $800 a month fresh out of college in the early 2000s is now $2500. It’s all due to investors. Many of them outside investors.

People dont eat their house? Tell that to all the beavers in my Toronto neighborhood.

I love how the NIMBY is a Karen 😅

@DemolitionManDemolishes

8 күн бұрын

Thats like 101 of propaganda

@richardbloemenkamp8532

7 күн бұрын

Had to look it up as a non-native-English-speaker but it was exactly what I was thinking: "Karen (slang) is a term used as slang typically for a middle-class white American woman who is perceived as entitled or excessively demanding."

Nice video, interesting to see NZ's context mentioned. A couple of points that weren't discussed: Other changes in NZ laws also contributed to lowering/halting rent increases: - Removal of interest deductability for landlords (meaning interest could not be written off as a business expense), although this has been recently reversed by the new government - Restricting amount of annual rent percentage increase and only allowing one increase per year - Easier rental contracts for renters plus removal of no-cause terminations Also one thing to look out in that graph is that it is a ratio between income and rent. Do not be fooled, rent has not fallen in gross. And Auckland is not the region increasing its supply the fastest (that would be Canterbury). In fact the graph most clearly says something about wages, not rent prices. It shows that Auckland incomes are growing faster than elsewhere, rather than housing supply being expanded.

Something else to consider is while demand for housing increases with population growth and rural to urban migration, the supply of land for building new homes remains fixed or decreases. Big cities are sort of like islands - land for new subdivisions cannot be created out of thin air but has to be bought from willing sellers.

This video was just amazing! It summed up a problem that “experts” talk about for hours and hours to finally say nothing.

Construction is also a lot more difficult for one, a lot more people are divorced or single these days and almost no one wants to live with there parents so by just labour numbers it's a lot more difficult to keep up. When you had most people married one person was needed to build a house for two or more people, now we have a lot of one person condo buildings and no one really mentions that. Also as someone who's worked in construction for 15+ years the level of regulations and new more expensive building requirements is a lot. New houses need $50-100k more in extra things like insulation, heat exchangers, arc fault breakers, fire alarms, 2x6 framing, etc. and that adds a lot of tax. Another cost is the fact that 30% of a new home cost is taxes and fees. Your average home in Ontario Canada is $300k of just taxes. And lastly the homes built pre 80's aren't in good condition any more. I think before that it was easy to build because everything was new construction but now there's a lot of people dedicated to just remodeling/rebuilding older houses. Side point is the fact that no one wants to do construction any more, here one person is joining construction for every 7 retirees

@maxrush206

14 күн бұрын

also vacancies in canada are sub 2% in some areas. almost all cities are below 5%. that's with all the money laundering in the canadian property market

@regieegseg8588

14 күн бұрын

Can you explain why no one wants to work in construction in canada?

@maxrush206

14 күн бұрын

@@regieegseg8588 because people thinks it's a bad job or they're told to 'do something better.' people literally make $100,000's running construction businesses and even as an employee the pay is really good. When I was in University people thought it was funny I worked in construction and a lot of them asked me why i didnt get a 'better job' when all of them were stepping on each others throats to get $17 an hour jobs(graduated com sci). Everyone thinks it's a lot worse than it is and no one wants to join

@robgrey6183

12 күн бұрын

@@regieegseg8588 Scary power tools. Mean bosses. Can't spend half the day playing with your phone.

@regieegseg8588

12 күн бұрын

@@robgrey6183 interesting. may be pay is shit?

Thank you for this video. Housing starts in my city are up significantly in 2023, including the transition of post covid commercial/office spaces into residential. Which is convenient as a lot of it is near public transit hubs.

I personally would like to see homes be more of a consumable good, mixed use zoning, and reduced building codes (at least In rural areas). So that If I want to live in the city I don't have to go into debt to do so, increased density at least being an option would lead to lower prices and more walkable cities, and if I want to build my own house out in the country, the government won't come tear it down for some technicality

Another potential factor In the UK is we have an oligopoly of house builders for whom it's not in their interest to supply the market with the houses we require. Rather managing supply to keep prices high. "The top ten housebuilders alone have 700,000 building plots lying idle as the housing shortages continues to worsen"

NIMBY isn't the whole answer. Not even close. In Oslo and many other cities around Europe, the local governments couldn't care less about what you want or not. If they want to build new houses, they will, and it will probably have little to no effect on their popularity, maybe even the opposite. So why don't they? Could it be so simple as to the fact that they are, for the most part, house owners themselves, and they want the price of their house to be as high as possible. 😮

@geolibertarian74

13 күн бұрын

Isn't that still nimbyism?

@Kurainuz

13 күн бұрын

Here in madrid most politicians, specially on the right side have a lot of real state investments themselves or their family. There is 20k people with over 11 houses themselves while most people cant aford rent or the 20% of the mortage that banks do not finance. I would say it works as they sadly, they get higher return on their investments, get the non rich people out of their neighborhoods, and the common people cant do anything about market prices

@rupertvass8793

11 күн бұрын

that is just the politicians being the nimbys

Great video, as always. And I have to say, your editing skills have inproved a lot over te last couple of years!

Baffling until you moved to the investment explanation. Ireland - my country - is filled with empty, vacant, derelict & decaying properties in the cities. No nimby would deny such vacant lots being changed to occupied lots. But what I also wonder might intensify this issue for Ireland is this: The reputation of Ireland is overhyped and not obvious outside the country - amongst folk who don’t know the country - and these investors’ perceptions are that property in the country is more valuable than, in time, it will turn out to be…

I'm no economist so I'm not sure if this is correct but for australia, house price to income ratio went from 3.5 in 1980s to 6+ today. Wouldn't this mean mortgages in the country would be harder to obtain, therefore muting the point posed by the IMF on mortgage repayments. Also how would negative gearing affect things? thanks

Housing and real estate markets worldwide have been transformed by global capital markets and financial excess. Known as the financialization of housing, the phenomenon occurs when housing is treated as a commodity - a vehicle for private wealth investment and enrichment through profiteering - rather than a social good.

I'm watching this in my new house 😂 😂

Nice summary and I like this channel more when it sticks to microeconomics. They Dr. Ryan-Collins theory of financialization being part of the cause of high housing prices reminds me of, and may have been inspired by, a book by Anthony Downs, "The Revolution in Real Estate Finance" (1985) which predicted a revolution of sorts that never really materialized. Downs was a prominent economist in the Washington DC area.

You should do a video as well, about renting unaffordabilty.

You cannot compare mortgages on a property at two different times without adjusting the amount! In your example, you compared a $100K mortgage for 30 years with different interest rates. But the average mortgage you need to take now can be 3-5 times that. For example, in Israel, it has almost gone up by 4-7 times compared to 20 years ago! Our parents got a mortgage of around $50K and paid it off in 10 years. Now we need to take a minimum of $250K mortgage for a two-bedroom apartment for 30+ years (based on average family income).

@markferguson7563

13 күн бұрын

The innate crux of why properties in Canada, and Australia - and, this is also true for England, as opposed to Britain; likewise with the US, too - is irrefutably due to one factor, and that is buttressed in large-scale immigration programs. This is then exacerbated with supply not keeping up with demand. So, all of the other aspects, which are espoused by the host and, indeed, with all those people posting comments regarding this, that or something else (although certainly having validity) is ostensibly just waffling on in a sea of self-serving semantics. Because in any of these jurisdictions that are fully dependent upon fueling their GDP’s via importing consumers, if enough properties aren’t constructed to cope with demand, then the dire side-effect is OVER PRICED properties. David Ricardo and, particularly with Henry George, were theorizing and espousing comments and, indeed, warnings on all of the negative nuances impacting real estate prices. Apropos to Henry George, way back in 1881 - two years after his book, ‘Progress and Poverty’ was published he told a senate hearing during the Garfield administration that: “The overt essence of why property values should in crease is a result of productivity, and not speculation.” Alas, here we are over 140 years after Henry George wrote ‘Progress and Poverty’ and, also, 207 years since David Ricado wrote the ‘Law of Rent’, we have politicians and captains of industry in Australia, Canada, Britain, and the US who missed reading their perspectives. But there is a far, far greater detriment to consider for all of these nations that have implemented large-scale, and, moreover, non-discriminatory immigration schedules. And that is to ponder the severe sociological impairments that will come to bear upon these societies being fractured on race, culture and, worst of all, religion. Quite simply, immigrant groups from non-Anglo/European and, more so, non-Christian cradles have been over the past 20-30 years that they have become culturally insular colonies/enclaves. Thus, it’s only a short time away before these groups organise against these societies in their own parliaments. To garner this pending horror most assuredly comes to pass in Britain, with hundreds of thousands of Muslims rallying in pro-Palestinian, and anti-Israel rallies from the middle of October.

@nicktw8688

8 күн бұрын

@@markferguson7563 Oh brother. Get over yourself. Canada, UK, Aussie....are now multicultural societies. It's not the end of the world, but the beginning of a new one.

@markferguson7563

6 күн бұрын

@@nicktw8688 - You gloat about Canada, the US, and Australia (already being) multicultural, and how I should get over it: because this is the beginning of something new and, no doubt, in your mind an idyllic, cultural utopian menagerie. Well, first of all, apart from immigration engendering an array of cuisines to savour what, pray tell, is of note - and CERTAINLY NOT of any significance - to the host societies? Ahh, gee, I almost forgot (sic), those boring song-and-dance routines that you occasionally witness them performing. So again, apart from either of those aspects just mentioned, what are the great elements that immigrants from non-Anglo/European cradles bring with them that will magically “enrich (the host county’s) cultures?” Well, that, of course, is intrinsically contained within the corridor of what they, ‘may’ contribute in any sphere of the workforces. Alas, the facet of working and, therefore, contributing to the GDP of a society, is now clearly diminished. Because in all of the 10 Western societies, which have taken in significant numbers of asylum-seekers from the Third World and offered them refuge all of the TEN are fettered with the great majority of these interlopers parasiting upon the host country. This certainly prevails in Britain, with how more than 90,000 asylum-seekers (almost all of them being able-bodied males who are no older than 35) who have invaded the country, over the past 4 years, have NEVER worked for more than a few days at a time. And when they do it this ostensibly entails being employed by a local council to undertake really menial tasks: such as attending to tidying up parks, or cleaning up abandoned, and dilapidated buildings. For their efforts, they are paid 25 pounds per-hour: yet, this money paid to them, doesn’t affect the welfare payments, and free-lodgings that they have been granted. Apropos to the free-rent they have I direct you to watch Paul Thorpe’s, KZread from today, May 8, titled: ‘You Need to Leave: Sinister Asylum Hotel’ Upon doing so you will become aware that these interlopers are pampered reprobates who parasite on the British taxpayers. But the most detrimental element to highlight to you poor deluded soul to expose how immigrants from Muslim societies have emerged as being dangerous to Western liberal societies. There are many articles, and You Tube broadcasts to consult to fathom the immense impairments that Islam poses for non-Muslims. Amongst them are: ‘British society will pay a price for tolerating extremism’ the Telegraph, Oct 31. Ex-Muslim: This is a difficult conversation. Why you can’t criticize Islam, Sarah Heider, from Trigonometry, in June/23, and, in the Fox News story from Nov 1. And also, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali from Nov 1, titled: ‘We are going through a moment of crisis’ In the latter story, Ali informs Martha McCallum, and the viewers of her upbringing in Kenya, telling us how when she was in the Islamic school (the Madras), the imams instructed her, and, indeed, all Muslims that they must hate anyone who doesn’t submit to the teachings of Allah. In that interview she states: “In the mid-1980s, we were told the Muslim Brotherhood gives a purpose. And that purpose was to hate the infidels and the Jews. And our main reason for being here was to conquer infidel lands and kill them.” Needless to say, anyone with a modicum of awareness is blatantly cognizant of how Islam is a religion stuck in the Medieval period of time. Once more, a primary tenant of Islam/the Koran is that non-believers must convert to Allah’s teachings or be eradicated.

There is always a Karen behind the NIMBY.

@jpablo700

13 күн бұрын

Or a Darren.

This video covers 3 reasons, but there are at least two more contributing factors. 1. Increased taxes and regulatory costs at every stage of the building process, from resource extraction through to trades certification requirements, and everything in between; and 2. An unwillingness of people to live outside of major urban areas, or for businesses/employers to set up outside of major urban centres.

Financialization is IMO the biggest problem. It eats away your income and inflates land value just by expected revenue of building location. And investors have a big advantage when it comes to acquiring a property. I'm also missing the affordable renting sector in your story. A solid portion of your stock should be affordable housing as a counterweight or competition for commercial renters but also for the buying market.

Honestly, when you draw a graph with 2 lines: 1. Net immigration 2. Net housing added You will see that overall, the added housing every year has been relatively stable over the past 50 years, while immigration has truly skyrocketed in comparison. In larger countries, this is even more exaggerated if you look per region instead of per country. This is because in larger countries there will still be a lot of empty homes in economically unnatractive regions. The Netherlands is an ideal country to draw this graph for. This leads me to a simple conclusion: 1. Housing supply is not to blame, since no matter how much demand there is, there is only so much than can be built each year. Even with extensive government measure, there is no way to keep up with demand. This rules out 'construction failure' as it is simply only a small percentage of the problem. 2. Indeed lower interest rates have lead to price inflation, as supply is not increased with higher prices (see 1). So financialization as a problem is correct, and can be seen as 'blowing a bubble'. 3. Speculation only works with strong demand and will further increase 'bubbling', but can be countered with government measures. And thus the cause is simply 'competition' and the only 'solution': The people saying increasing unemployment/recession is the only thing that will bring prices down are correct, since unemployment is also strongly correlated to immigration and both seem to be the strongest driving factors in demand. It's either that or prevent immigration through government measures, but just like increasing construction, I don't see that as being politically feasible as both paths will be conflicting with human rights. Change my mind please :-)

@secretarchitect288

Күн бұрын

In the UK last year, 190k new houses were constructed. In the same year net immigration was 720k. That's over 3.75 new people for every new house. In my opinion, this is now the main driver of house price inflation.

@Arhnuld

Күн бұрын

I agree. This fierce competition on the housing market in certain regions is leading to increased mortgage lending despite higher interest rates. This makes the instrument of interest rates unable to combat inflation. I think lower rates are out of the question for the foreseeable future. I think if graphs were published about the current money supply, they would be going up again. In such circumstances, another drop in supply would surely lead to another wave of inflation in the way meanstream economists measure it :) But I expect people saying this will be ridiculed by economists. It's transitory, right?

@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle

Күн бұрын

Xenophobe

I think a big part and only briefly mentioned in the NIMBY conversation is the issue of affordable housing in certain places. If you want affordable housing, you can find it in “flyover” country. The problem is, is that people want everything. You can’t live in the most expensive places in the world and then complain it is too expensive.

@Frostbiker

14 күн бұрын

People want to live in the place where they can find a job? The audacity! What will they ask for next? Access to a doctor and a school for their children?

@Yaotzin86

14 күн бұрын

Many poor people in fact used to live in the most expensive places in the world, because that was where the opportunity to become not poor was. The latter part remains true, but the low cost housing they need was largely made illegal to build.

@evolvedape3341

14 күн бұрын

@@Frostbiker Did you know that - GASP! - people actually live in flyover country! Wow! And they have jobs! Amazing

@evolvedape3341

14 күн бұрын

@@Yaotzin86 Very true. I just find it difficult when I hear people who live in LA complaining about the cost of living after moving there for the weather. Yeah, I mean there are lots of issues, but I’d love to live on a mountain ski resort until the cost of it comes into play.

Re: 13:12 , I can't say anything about Toronto, but Vancouver has a very low vacancy rate and a vacancy tax to prevent vacant homes. CMHC (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation) reports a 0.9% vacancy rate for 2023. Anecdotally, the only units I know of going vacant for longer than a few weeks are unsafe and unliveable, or they are someone's primary residence who is away for an extended period of time. (For example, my mum spent two months with my brother and his wife when they had their first baby together, and he lives in a different city, so her house was vacant from an outside perspective, but in no way would it be able to be long term housing for someone else.)

You can also motivate nimbys to allow construction: For instance in the Netherlands you can give priority access to great social housing.

I don't know if the "excessive speculation" accounting was done correctly. If a secondary property is being rented in the short term with Airbnb for example, that would classify it as "occupied", when in reality it isn't... vacation=/=living. You would need to look at second/third+ property ownership, instead of vacant housing, in order to look at investment properties in more detail. A lot of cities in Canada are pushing back on short-term rentals in major cities, exactly because this has been identified as a significant slice of the problem ...

@bandqpine1690

14 күн бұрын

amen , this is taking up a huge percent of the market, and in a market of tight margins, 5% allocated to short rentals or vacay homes can kill an area

@Yaotzin86

14 күн бұрын

Why isn't that occupied? Short term housing demand is real too.

@lmao4982

14 күн бұрын

@@bandqpine1690 sounds profitable just build more homes

@rupertvass8793

11 күн бұрын

@@lmao4982 because having housing as short term rentals means it is easy to sell as you don't have to deal with renter protection laws, and also over the same period of time a short term rental will cost more as for example people will spend more when going somewhere for an emergency or holiday

@lmao4982

11 күн бұрын

@@rupertvass8793 yeah just build more

Vienna is the prime example of how to handle housing. The problem is that this system works because everything else works as well. One of, if not the most effective public transport system, constant building of new housing complexes, high quality healthcare at a very low cost, (mostly) high-quality education for free, location effectively forces a lot of transportation routes within Europe to go through Austria, a country which is very rich itself, high amount of disosable income, and the politicians can't ruin it (not for a lacking of trying) because the government collapses every year due to corruption scandals. It's almost like you have to invest into society to make it work. Also, I'm pretty sure the IMF doesn't take into account the stagnating wages, increasing the cost of houses relatively to available income.

@chefscircle6133

14 күн бұрын

is income tax high in austria?

@aszhara2900

14 күн бұрын

@@chefscircle6133 depends on what you mean by high, but except for the highest bracket, which is set way too low, it's reasonable imo

@NoctLightCloud

14 күн бұрын

I was born in Austria and I'm glad that I don't live in Vienna. Hardly anyone outside of Vienna likes Vienna and Viennese people, and I'm pretty sure that it's only a matter of time until the renting crisis swaps over to here, as well. So there's nothing to really praise there, as house prices in Austria are expensive just like everywhere else in Western Europe. I earn 2300€ net/month and I can't afford a car & house purchase. The only folks that can afford it are those who inherit something and sell it off. The loans are crazy. I'm actually considering leaving for a cheaper country as I'm not willing to be merely renting my whole life. I want a house, as most people.

@dunstalker

14 күн бұрын

@@chefscircle6133 crazy high and progressive as well. If you own a business or are a wealthy person, you can be taxed up to 50%!!! Compare it with Czechia right next to it, where as a business owner we pay a 8% income tax! very reasonable!

@NoctLightCloud

14 күн бұрын

​@@chefscircle6133no, the income tax alone isn't high per se, but the overall taxation (income tax, pension tax, social security tax) can quickly amass to 40~50% of your gross income. And with quickly, I mean as soon as you earn a bit more than the average person💀

So they pick the year (1980) with the 2nd highest inflation and interest rate in American history and compare it to now to say housing is more affordable by just looking at that year's interest rate? How could they possibly make that claim when comparing a time when the average household income could afford the average home while now the average household income can only afford half of the average home?

Another problem is that in much of the USA property taxes are low enough that large landlords will deliberately keep a sizable portion of their units vacant to keep supply low compared to demand which raises the prices they can charge. Where I'm at property taxes are essentially non-existant and the rent/lease costs are double what a mortgage would cost.

Worked in Construction in the U.S. The issue is that the U.S government has put little to no investment into the construction sector (everything is going towards finance & military). The construction industry is either mega corporations or small and Mom & Pop Shop. And it's the Mom & Pop Shop construction business which works mostly on houses have very low profit margins something like 10% its sometime less or sometime even more. The small business work on [fix price] contracts meaning they take on the entire risk in case it goes over budget which can cause some of them to close down. With large construction companies they work [time and material] contracts meaning if they go over budget they can just charge more. The government really needs to help out the small business because they are the main one working on houses.

The real reason housing is so expensive? Greed. That's the only reason, anywhere on the face of the earth. It's pure greed.

Very interesting thought process...

Thank you for another well-considered, well researched video. A few points may be worth considering as well: 1) The US, where interest rates can be fixed for decades, reacts very differently to interest rate increases, compared to countries like Canada where interest rates are either variable or renegotiated every few years. 2) the sudden reversal of a decades-long trend of decreasing interest rates has shown how house prices are much slower to come down than they were to go up. 3) you have offered up several decades-long explanations for the past few years’ sudden price increases. I think that those long term trends are important, but don’t explain the sudden shift. 4) there are inherent problems in trying to suddenly increase housing construction in the same way that population growth has changed in Canada (from roughly 1% per year over the past few decades to 1.8% in 2022 and 3.2% in 2023.). This requires skilled tradespeople and (especially for high rises) specialized equipment which take time to get into place, even if zoning issues are resolved. Thanks again for your work.

Whatever the reason is, it has to stop. Our first house a 3 bed semi in London in 2010 (after the 2008 crash) was £220k. Now it’s valued at £450k. Our second house a 4 bed detached in a popular affluent rural small town (fresh air and better quality of life than London) was £380k in 2020. It’s now valued at £420k despite interest rates rising and prices supposedly going down. Of course it’s never been too easy, we skipped every holiday and worked 7 days a week, many sacrifices were made to get on the housing ladder. But without help from parents it’s now impossible for most young people. Nor is it possible for them to rent an affordable home and many end up living at home with parents. It’s not right.

@effexon

13 күн бұрын

how many kids you had/planned to have in that first house? To put in perspective for normal family, perhaps 2-3 kids? and yes, that is only possible maybe 1/3 of couples with highest 20% jobs out there, which is bad combination. Ideally 50% to 2/3 should have this option to put it wider group of people, those with 7 kids are in very very exceptional position to handle that or very small town with inheritance and inlaws helping constantly. AFAIK in 70s and 80s yes people worked but not 7days a week to have house and huge amount of people did that. So if average salary is good vs monthly payment, higher interest aint problem.

@MsJustice4ever

13 күн бұрын

@@effexon 2 children because we didn’t feel we can afford more and provide properly for more. We moved out of London and upsized the house because I fully expect them to not move out quickly, we potentially have them living with us well into their late twenties or even afterwards, with the current prices. We’re trying to build a nest egg of money for them to help with deposits when they are old enough and have stable jobs to qualify for a mortgage, but it’s not going very well. In the last 2 years we couldn’t save much even for our own retirement, let alone anything else. I think it will only get worse and I feel very sorry for the next generation of young people.

@effexon

13 күн бұрын

@@MsJustice4ever yea that's what I thought, sounds very typical right now. I got first proper job almost 35yo so that makes it tough to "mature" into proper adult life. Someone having all usual things at 25 right in order is outlier. It seems smart to find way in trades not university and some other city than London/main biggest cities, then there are a bit more opportunities to get by. With university I mean in 20s can then try many jobs and perhaps even degrees but one university degree takes so long it is one shot if that career aint right for you(many people put 100% in studies and then to start career so even friendships and family etc get postponed a lot, even to 40s). I wish they didnt bring so many immigrants as then it could balance a bit over time, but now it cant(with housing situation).

@MsJustice4ever

13 күн бұрын

@@effexon absolutely. Regarding your point on immigration, you’re right about that too. The population growth is insane, but it’s not generated by responsible native people, immigration is the culprit in most areas. Supply and demand will not allow prices to be balanced.

@secretarchitect288

Күн бұрын

Spot on! Last year there were almost four new arrivals for every newly built house. The ordinary person can see why there's a housing shortage but the political class ignore it whilst our small island becomes ever more crowded.

NOAHPINION REFERENCE!!!!! ❤❤❤

@MrDifficille

12 күн бұрын

Barf

@MrDifficille

12 күн бұрын

Barf

7:25 the drop in rent in Aukland and rise in rent in the rest of NZ appears to have started very close together, is it possible that this is caused by the higher rent somehow being shifted from aukland to the rest of the country? i.e. from either people moving out of aukland or just not as many people moving in

@JamielDeAbrew

13 күн бұрын

Did this happen around a similar time that remote work increased (ie working from home)? If yes, I wonder if people choose to move further from their workplace to get more rooms at the same price (eg a home office, hobby room, guest room etc…) If so, what happened when this flowed through the market? Did it eventually lead to un under-supply of rooms - eventually pushing up the national average rental price?