Only allow resident citizens to own the one property they live in, and have the government handle rentals like the old council housing / Folkhemmet homes.
I am not sure what to suggest...
Young people are already screwed, and unless they all show up to vote in marginal constituences (unlikely) then they'll continue to get screwed, unfortunately.
How can you say you "own" something if you're not allowed to sell or rent it to anyone you want?
And because you can live in it, and don't pay anyone to do so.
- Buy-and-hold rental property investors buy properties using Excel, and are vastly less susceptible to hyped and emotional pricing than the public.
- More landlords = more capital available for home-builders = more houses built
- Supply and demand - more houses and more landlords, with the same number of tenants, shifts pricing power to the tenants
Instead people are investing in housing as a "store of value" against inflation, maybe not even renting it out and just hoping it appreciates. This is driving prices sky-high.
Meanwhile local politicians and boomers support NIMBYism and oppose all housing developments, leading to a massive shortage in housing. Landlords love this as it increases the value of their properties, and developers don't care as they can sell the fewer houses they build for greater profit.
Whilst at the same time national leaders support mass immigration leading to a huge increase in demand.
Overall this rewards property owners and hurts working people and the economy (when people can't easily move to economically active areas, and have less disposable income). Ultimately harming social mobility and destroying faith in capitalism and private property as a whole (it becomes to resemble feudalism, destroying the idea that you can work hard and have a good life).
This is the problem - artificially constrained supply. Fix this and the lower prices will follow. Fix other things and you’ll just create further distortions and frustrations later on
Renting houses simply shouldn't be such a profitable endeavor. There have been stories posted where hotels snap up apartment units for AirBNB because those make more money than hotel rooms. That should never be the case.
If there are more units than renters, prices WILL drop, and fast. Landlords compete against each other, which is why you want many of them.
However, in today's world where AirBNB is unbelievably profitable, more houses than ever can be put up for rent at extreme prices. It heavily restricts the housing supply in a way that wasn't possible before AirBNB came around.
But I don’t think there’s either an infinite pool of AirBnB demand or that every landlord is willing to put up with running an AirBnB regardless of profit (doing AirBnB is more a business than a passive investment).
Maybe limiting AirBnB in residential zones will contribute to the solution, but neither limiting the capital flow into housing nor limiting the number of new units built will ever work.
>Meanwhile local politicians and boomers support NIMBYism and oppose all housing developments
This is 100% the issue. Build more housing. Allow smaller units and efficiencies for lower income residents. Get rid of some of the bureaucracy around building, so much of it is just implicit NIMBYism.
This.
Every boomer thinks he's a genius investor for simply blocking all residential development and looking at the price of his house go up. The government knows it and wants to keep the votes coming in so they prop up real estate as much as they can. Notice the same parties will simultaneously try to push some sort of virtue signaling (pro-diversity or whatever) to the younger demographics at the same time. They can't afford to pander to them via housing policy so they have to find something else...
This isn't creating any kind of value, nor innovation. Apple, Google and Facebook, like it or not, created a tremendous amount of wealth for the country. Housing didn't.