Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryanmarsh | Hacker News Reader

I too have noticed a trend of anti-homeownership propaganda. Here's what I can't figure out. Why does "anti-homeownership propaganda" exist at all? Who has something to gain from it?

View on HN

I don't know but it reminds me of the pro eating bugs propaganda, and this recent "You'll own nothing. And you'll be happy"[1] ad from the World Economic Forum. They're trying to get the plebs to not want their own homes or possessions.

[1] https://reclaimthenet.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/wef2.pn...

I get no use out of the vast majority of objects in my house on a day-to-day basis. I know people in my community need objects that I have. I know people in my community have objects that I need. If they/I had those objects when they/I needed them, the entire community is more productive and "worth more."

If you have ever lent tools to anyone you will quickly realize why this kind of utopian sharing doesn't work. Most people have terrible standards for caring for or maintaining things even if they are their own things, much less someone else's. Thus the stigma against lending or borrowing tools in the trades.

I doubt the bug-eaters/own-nothingers have ever held a tool much less own one.

Quit being a jerk please. EDIT: Really, why do you think something like that is appropriate? You have no idea how I make my money.

Location location location. Some people might prefer to live in a shoebox 5 min walking distance from work and play, over owning their residence.

I think we've been sold the suburbanized, car-and-home-ownership-centric, "American Dream" for so long, that other options have been actively neglected if not sabotaged.

* Stability is poor. You can lock in a 30-year fixed rate mortgage with a predictable payment (effectively hedging against inflation), but there's little to no recourse against landlords doubling your rent next year or refusing to renew your lease.

* Fully pedestrianized, live-work development is still a scattershot novelty, often requiring heroic efforts to get zoning and incentives set up, but the 1000-hectare, 900 houses and 4 golf courses, 700 km of roads that curley-Q and cul-de-sac, master-planned community, has been raised to an art form.

* Attempts to support public transit are not just forgotten, but aggressively fought, in part because buses/light rail/subways are considered services for undesirable groups.

* The whole urban-renter situation tends to be treated either as a "well, it's just poor/minority/etc." as a subconscious motivation to allow stagnation, or handwaved as a transient situation for the "successful professionals" -- they'll eventually move out to a McMansion so it doesn't matter that their experience is lousy for a few years while they save a down payment.

Unless the wealthy/successful/influential embrace this lifestyle, there will be limited momentum to improve it for anyone else.

> Unless the wealthy/successful/influential embrace this lifestyle, there will be limited momentum to improve it for anyone else.

There you have it folks.

I wonder if you (and OP) are conflating "anti-homeownership propaganda" (perhaps some exists) with anti-single family housing zoning "propaganda"? I follow land use topics pretty closely and I'm not sure I've seen any movement I would describe as "anti-homeownership" so I'm wondering if this is a perspective i'm just not familiar with.

Both can be problems. The lack of housing just big enough for a single, maybe couple, with an occasional guest (friend/etc) that later becomes the first baby's room. The lack of overall social stability to promote relationships.

In more modern terms, also the lack of a home office for each working adult; because society still hasn't digested the possibility of remote-mostly working and how that can be a good thing, rather than the hell many are facing during this pandemic.

Developers?

What are the profit margins on large rental properties vs. single family neighborhoods?

People who want higher density in their neighborhoods because they believe that it will lower their costs, and apply that to everyone, everywhere?

Completely different businesses. There’s plenty of money in McMansions.

My guess from most of my 20s and 30s living in big cities- when you live in a tiny apartment almost anything you do from food, entertainment, exercise, transportation is a repeated consumption expense since you don't have space to actually own anything, repair anything, wash anything or buy in bulk. Now that I live in a suburb I give away way less money just to exist.

Yes but that’s bad for the economy. You should spend every penny and rely on the state for your retirement. /sarcasm

Presumably if one owned many homes and rented them out they might benefit from increased renting demand. Though the resale value of the house might also go down with less people buying so Idk if it balances out. My perception from London is that resale prices continues to go up even if most people rent but Idk if that's accurate or generalizable.

People who are struggling to pay rent. American public policy favors homeowners over renters. Suburbs were popularized with government intervention (toll free highways and government backed mortgages). We could choose to relax overly restrictive zoning and change tax laws to throw city dwellers a bone.

anyone who thinks single-family residential zoning is a plague benefits from anti-homeownership messages. own a condo or a unit in a triplex instead.

"Anyone who thinks X benefits from not-X" is not universally true.

Starting with Millennials and Gen Z, you've got 2 generations for whom homeownership is fast becoming a pipe dream without at least one of the following: very high paying job, inheritance or other help from parents, moving to a very low cost of living area (which the hurts job prospects).

Anti-homeownership propaganda appeals to them. Why wouldn't they look for upsides in their situation?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com