I also think there's a strong economies of scale argument that "we" (society) would prefer most people rent (and use some sort of fixed or low-profit system that does maintenance at scale) as it'll result in lower overall costs. However it's absolutely true that home ownership is the best vehicle we've found for building inter-generational wealth so I'm not against it. Also one can simply prefer a society with more individual owners and slightly higher overall costs - reasonable people can disagree.
I think that is a an advantage, not a disadvantage. There is no need for housing investments to have competitive yields. If you can make a profit building houses which have more value to buyers than your cost of inputs, someone will make them. It just won't be a speculative investment good.
I don't worry that people will stop making socks, shoes, or food because the profit margin in that business is lower than the market yield. If there is on opportunity for profit, someone will want do it. They just might not be funded by some massive financial hedge fund, which again, I think is an advantage.
Historically, home ownership has been a vehicle for intergeneration wealth building because it means taking on more responsibility, work, and risk instead of paying a 3rd party to do so.
I would argue that most people renting would not result in the lowest cost, because it turns responsibilities that a homeowner can do for free into 3rd party services which must be paid for. It is like saying that city run food kitchens would be more efficient than people cooking at home. Maybe it is "more efficient" if you count the homeowners implicit labor, but the dollar cost to the cooker is still going up.
I think most people would agree the goal is higher ownership and lower costs than now. I think this is actually reasonable if we fix some of the conditions that lead to house exorbitant growth in house value
I personally agree but you are not describing the economic system we live in.
> I don't worry that people will stop making socks, shoes, or food because the profit margin in that business is lower than the market yield.
This happens all of the time - but the market finds another equilibrium and continues to provide the good.
> It is like saying that city run food kitchens would be more efficient than people cooking at home.
Generally agreed - this would be more efficient. I also do not want it. It's more efficient in every way. There are significant economies of scale. There is a reason armies do not have each individual soldier cook their meals.
> I think most people would agree the goal is higher ownership and lower costs than now.
100% agree - but my point is that this is a local maxima. If we wish to globally minimize "total resource expenditure" then the Platonic best system is some perfectly managed hyper-apartment arrangement with the "optimal" allocation of affordances. Though, as I said, reasonable people can value things other than costs. We are generally always in a local maxima - but it's good to remember it.
I just dont think we are on the same page here or think this is accurate for our system. The 1% profitable sock factory doesn't shut down because some investor somewhere starts making 100% ROI on bitcoins or tech stock. A carpenter doesn't lay down his tools because fund manager somewhere is making big bucks. I agree the prevailing rates on capital can have impacts on new growth in capital intensive industries, but that doesn't mean you wont be able to find a homebuilder if you have cash in your pocket.
>Generally agreed - this would be more efficient. I also do not want it. It's more efficient in every way. There are significant economies of scale. There is a reason armies do not have each individual soldier cook their meals.
I don't think resources like labor and time are truly fungible and can be treated as interchangeable. Efficiency is relative to the measure of value and the person making the valuation.
If I don't value my time or even enjoy cooking, paying someone to do it is not efficient for me, even if there are huge economies of scale. It might be efficient in terms of total hours to some central planner, but their valuation of my time and labor is not the same as mine. I am still paying money for labor that would otherwise be free. It may be horribly inefficient.
There is no maximally efficient platonic system without a universally imposed definition of the measures being optimized.
Totally agree! All my global statements are gesturing towards the idea of such an idea - which is of course impossible but can be helpful to weigh alternatives.
> I just dont think we are on the same page here or think this is accurate for our system. [...]
I agree with everything you say here so I apologize for talking past you. What I was saying is that, within an investment category, higher yields chase out lower ones. It's not that the sock maker gets out-competed by bitcoin - it's that the person trying to sell "barely good enough" socks in the developed world gets zero shelf space compared to other options. Their product is profitable at the unit level, but can't find buyers efficiently enough to support the costs of doing so.
If you are searching for investment at a "below-market" rate, you are going to be at the back of the queue. Also, because you are definitionally working on low margins, your ability to adapt for unforeseen circumstances is high, increasing your risk. That puts those kinds of financial approaches in a "high risk, low yield" quadrant as far as I can see it.
We could, of course, simply choose to build housing at close-to-cost and then package & sell that as bonds (basically). You could probably find takers, even if it's riskier than many bonds, but you need to have the funding assembled beforehand. I just mean that it's a hard problem and I see why these systems have not risen up naturally in our building ecosystem.
> valuation of my time and labor is not the same as mine
You are absolutely correct that this is an impossible problem to solve practically, but in a thought experiment it's simple to say that the central planner perfectly discovers & enumerates every individuals' value on time and labor and creates the optimal system with that in mind.
Similarly, value gains from land appreciation are taxed at the time of sale. IF I pay annual taxes on land appreciation, I should be exempt from taxes at the point of sale, otherwise I am paying for that appreciation twice.
I feel it in the same way that I would not want my ability to beath air to depend on some social utilitarian function that could decide it is better used elsewhere.
I suppose you might view this as anti-social.
Society is what defines the concept of land ownership and actively protects the ownership of land, so it's not possible to remove a dependency of the latter on the former.
For example, You can own land if there is no society or other people to contest it. If you are alone on a island, there is no one to say you don't own it
Similarly, you can own land without social dependence if you have the power take or defend it.
If you've ever been mugged or read of nations conquered, it is clear that social consensus and the rule of law is but one mode of arbitrating property ownership. That said, it is one that works out quite well
Ownership has no meaning unless you can identify who does not have it, which requires at least one other person nearby. If you are alone on an island, you are just occupying it.
> Similarly, you can own land without social dependence if you have the power take or defend it.
This requires an army or militia, or an overwhelming technological advantage over those you are dispossessing. Those imply operating in a societ. Otherwise where does your militia and technology come from?
A house is not a stock, bond, or number in a savings account. You get utility from living in it as well.
A 0% ROI would however make that investment unattractive for 3rd parties who don't live in the house.
However, purchasing a house it is not just an inflation hedge. It comes with a house you can live in! This is an attractive quality for many of us humans who like living in homes.
Really though, I would argue that housing in aggregate is not a good hedge against inflation because while it is true that the price of an average square foot of housing in the United States has gone up almost zero percent adjusted for inflation over the last 50 years, you have had to do 50 years of maintenance on it, 50 years of insurance premiums, 50 years of paint, siding, roofing, etc. And a 5% realtor commission. By definition, it has therefore, on average, trailed inflation.
If you are looking at specific houses, in specific areas, that's not "housing is a good hedge against inflation" it's "if we look at the winners in a speculative market, we find that they have won" which isn't so much an investment philosophy as a tautology.
That said a mortgage may be a good hedge against inflation but only by virtue of it being a long-duration fixed-interest debt facility with preferential interest treatment at income tax time. And 5X leverage.
Owning should be cheaper than renting in the long run for the same reason it is cheaper to cook at home than eating out.
Savings by owning should be commensurate with the risk taken, cost of upkeep, and time value of money.