Oh boy. There's so much I can say about this topic, and none of it is positive.
Basically, the way our culture mindlessly promotes home ownership is insane. Absolutely insane!
Every time I hear people complaining about "throwing away money" by renting, and how they would rather put that money into a house, I want to hold them by the shoulders and shake them violently. It's like the housing market crash did not teach anyone anything!
It comes down to this: a house is a terrible, terrible means of investment. It's a fixed asset that, contrary to popular belief, is not guaranteed to always go up in value. In addition, people don't really take into account the negatives. Primarily, a house ties you down. You have zero mobility as a labor market participant if you own a house, and this significantly reduces your leveraging power when it comes to negotiating salary. Besides that though, houses have a ton of expenses, and as fixed assets they are subject to a lot of uncontrollable risk (fire, floods, earthquakes, the neighborhood depreciating, etc.).
Instead of having that money tied down on a house, people are much better investing in the stock market, which has, over the past 100 years, gone up by 7% annually.
The only time a house makes sense is when raising kids. The stability of the environment has a lot of positive benefits for their growth. It also makes social integration easier.
/rant
* Leverage. (The most you can leverage a stock investment is 2x. For homes people can leverage their money up to an insane 20x, for example: by buying a 500k home with 25k down. The proper comparison is not to compare buying a 500k home vs 500k worth of stocks; it's buying 25k or 50k worth of stocks vs a 500k home.)
* Mortgage deduction. (Imagine if you could invest 500k in the stock market with only 25k, and then the government let you deduct your interest payments!)
* Inflation. (I've heard of people living in Manhattan in apartments they bought in the 1980s that pay a mortgage of $500. Inflation has reduced their mortgage debt to negligible levels. Time has in a very real way erased much of their debt.)
As a result you can basically borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars, long-term for free. Inflation offsets a fixed interest rate--and the spread is probably only about a point right now, with low inflation.
The housing market is recovering, and immigration reform could create millions of new legal customers for real estate. The only downside is that the mortgage deduction will likely be capped, reduced, or taken away as part of tax reform in the next decade.
The mortgage deduction is priced into your home (as are low interest rates). Absent the deduction, real estate prices will fall. As interest rates rise, housing prices will also tend to soften.
What inflation giveth, it also taketh away: your mortgage costs are reduced, but so is the appreciation of your house.
There is also:
* Closing costs. 5k to 10k can easily go to that only. So just buying and selling constantly could end wasted eaten "transaction costs"
* Chance of moving. Are you likely to move? If so think twice about a house. This is offset in the software world by working from home.
* You effectively get a 4% loan and pay it off in 30 years. That could be hundreds of thousands of dollars over the cost of your house you end up paying to the bank in 30 years. That completely escapes many people. Now there is inflation and the opportunity cost to do something else with the money but:
* You have to figure is your salary going to keep up with the inflation? You hope so right...right?
* Opportunity cost. Could you make more by buying some stock, and sell it after 30 years?
* Do you think housing is going to go up again or is the stock market going to go up faster. Same compounding for interest rate goes for reinvesting stock dividends.
We saw this last situation for a new hire who last year was unable to sell his underwater midwest home while finding rents in a markedly hotter housing market much higher, especially when proximity to good schools and low crime rates were factored in.
True, but that's not what we have in the market today. You are confusing "should" with "is".
Are you saying that today we have more skin in the game and it's not helping, or that today we don't have more skin in the game (with market stability left AFAICT uncommented on)?
Note that you should always spread risk in your portfolio, but housing at nominally negative rates should have youngers investing if they can. Buy something small and close to the city core.
I like redfin.com as a market changer in this space. Check them out!
Many people would be better served renting. All of the incentives are actually causing us to spend a lot more on housing than we otherwise would have, capital that is being diverted away from building productive industries.
Which is fine, since we are letting China have all that stuff anyway. We have all the empty houses and the debt to brag about.
I guess you are confusing investment and mortgage?
Is this just because newspaper articles are biased towards the perspective of real estate agents and homeowners? Or are high house prices good because houses are investments? Would cheap 3-d printed houses (hypothetically) make the country better off or worse off economically?
It's the same thing for most goods - the price mechanism is inherently value-neutral, and then whether it's better if prices go up or down depends upon how many people are potentially on each side of the transaction. Falling wages are seen as a bad thing, because most Americans identify with labor and not capital. The social security crisis is seen as a bad thing, because senior citizens (who get the payouts) vote in much larger numbers than young adults (who pay the taxes). Falling stock prices are seen as a bad thing because most Americans own stocks, even if indirectly. Falling CDO prices are seen as a good thing because most Americans do not own CDOs.
Why? Those homeowners shouldn't care what the price of their house is. While they're living in it, it doesn't matter, and when they sell, presumably their next house will be cheaper too.
The only time home prices should matter is in comparison to the overall market. If your house got cheaper while other homes got more expensive, that's a problem for you. Otherwise, the price of your home is mostly irrelevant.
Let's say you bought a house for $400k with 100k down and have so far paid 50k towards the remaining 300k (plus interest, since it's a loan). The housing market has gone down, and your house is now worth $200k. (These sort of drops happen). Okay, so your house is worth $200k. You need to get out of there, but you've only paid 150k towards your 400k loan. You sold the house for 200k, so now you still owe 50k to the bank for a house you just sold for less. This does not help you out of your current situation, which was to sell an asset to pay for things, or to survive easier.
Edit: Note. This is a VERY simple and slightly inaccurate review of how paying for a house works. The intent of it was to explain why lowering prices are bad for people that already own homes.
If I sell the house, I walk away with $40,000 in cash, which I can keep tax-free (a special privilege accorded the capital gains on your primary residence).
Now let's say I want to buy a home the same size--it's $120,000 too. But I only need a down payment of 20% to secure the mortgage--that's $24,000. So now I'm back in a house the same size as I had, but I have $16,000 tax-free in my pocket.
This is part of the problem with the American labor market at the moment.
* Most bought and expect it to appreciate. Very important. That is the most important retirement asset they have. If their house loses half the money it could mean eating ramen for 20 years after retirement or eating steak.
* Property taxes. Some would actually not like it to appreciate too fast if they are not selling yet because they have to shell our many thousands of dollars a year. Ideally they would like the price to stay low then right before they sell, to spike through the roof.
But we are avoiding that too, borrowing a trillion plus bucks a year. We will ultimately face the music and it will be when all the wiggle room is gone, because they wiggle as much as possible without regard to long term consequences.
If they actually sit down and work it out, most people are astonished at how much flexibility they sacrifice for that small slice of equity.
People are: shown the total amount they have to pay to the bank over the life of the loan. It is hundreds of thousands of dollars over 30 years. And most can see in their statement what gets applied to principle and what gets applied to interest.
If they didn't screw themselves and get a loan with early payment penalties they are always free to pay extra anytime they see fit to reduce principle (and if it is early enough it could end up dramatically reducing the total interest paid).
TL;DR: people need to know more math
http://michaelbluejay.com/house/rentvsbuy.html
The author offers a reward if you find an error.
in most areas where i want to live, this is the going price for a buying an extra parking spot at the building garage. when you get a good price.
This is not easy to find and the market typically corrects itself over the course of a few months to a year, unless there is rent control.
However, you also have to pay maintenance. And had you not put all that equity in your home, then it could be earning above inflation, whereas real-estate in aggregate earns approximately at inflation (if you do better or worse, then you were a winner or a loser versus the average).
Of course, the tax deduction is worth something, inducing people to do things they would not otherwise do. And no capital gains tax on profits. And first time assistance. And whatever else there is running up government deficits.
Its a big ponzi scheme. It blew up once and I guess they know how to profit on the way up and on the way down. Its Mr. and Mrs. Joe Average who get skewered.
What percentage of a mortgage payment actually gets converted into equity?
(coming from a genuinely curious person who has never owned a house)
If you do the math, a typical 30-year mortgage will cost you twice the actual cost of paying cash for a home, so roughly 50% of your payment actually gets converted into equity, assuming your home value was static over the term. This is why people often advise new homeowners to make an extra principal-only payment as often as possible at the beginning of the loan: to cut down the eventual amount of interest you'll end up paying.
That's what I've done with my mortgage. I've been lucky to be in a position to make frequent principal-only payments and should be able to cut a 30-year mortgage to 15-ish or so, saving a metric grundle of cash in the process. Given the nature of the conversation happening around this thread, I suppose I should state my reasons for trading away job-seeking flexibility: I LOVE that eventually, I'll have a roof and four walls independent of my employment situation.
Expand the basement? Sure! Get a bunch of dogs? Why not! Commit to getting to know the neighbors? Sounds great. All while not having to worry about a landlord doing whatever they want at the end of a lease.
It's a very rewarding thing. Is it for everyone? Absolutely not, much in the same way having kids or getting married isn't for everyone either. But for me, there is a lot of value in the actual ownership.
It's funny that two out of the three things you said are additional expenses that the house enables.
Of course, we aren't disputing the emotional value of owning a home. We're just saying that it's a poor financial decision most of the time.
Those same two things may also be valuable to the owner, regardless of expense. Expand my basement so I have room to continue working on the hobby I love? Sounds good.
In a typical 30yr mortgage, you will make 360 monthly (roughly equal) payments. If your mortgage payment is $1000/mo, payment #1 will be approximately $950 interest and $50 principal. Payment #360 will be ~ $50 interest and $950 principal.
Most people move every five or six years (historical, might not be true with current RE market), so they complete about 20% of their total mortgage schedule. However, because of this ramped apportionment, most people still owe the lender much more than 80% of their initial purchase price.
The first time I did the math on this, I thought I had discovered a huge consumer-hostile scam. But actually it's quite reasonable -- mortgages are designed to keep payments equal over the term of the loan, so there's really no other way to do it.
It was quite the slam-dunk easy decision to make where I live (San Francisco), considering how hot the rental market is. My house rents for $1k more than the monthly mortgage!
The reason mortgages front load the interest is not to victimize borrowers (that's just a pleasant side effect) but because in the early days of the loan, you are using more of the lender's money. You pay it back slowly, but you pay interest in each payment on the amount that you're using at that point in the term.
So payment #1, you pay interest on ~100% of the loan. Plus a little extra to reduce your principal. Next payment is interest on ~99.8% (100% minus 1/360th), plus a little extra (more than last time) for principal reduction so that the payments total the same amount. On and on til payment #360.
If you're paying 40% principal on payment #1, by my math, either your effective interest rate is variable over the term, or you're choosing to overpay the invoice (applying the excess to principal -- which makes a huge difference in the early years).
I'm surprised the economics of buying work out so well in SF these days. When I left, it was the other way around. Interest rates help a lot. Congrats on the house!
The economics of buying vs renting has changed a great deal since I moved here. 5 years ago, buying was rather questionable. I took advantage of "cheap" rents to save up for buying a house when it finally became a buyer's market. Now rents have nearly doubled, but housing prices haven't gone up proportionately.
However, blindly following advice on renter-ship is as bad as blindly following advices on homeownership. Every situation is different, and you should do your math per your specific situation.
Unless you make lots of extra payments you gather equity very slowly. The break even interest vs equity per year point is at the half way point.
Here's a calculator I whipped up: http://instacalc.com/1737 (adjust the numbers as you need; this is a side project of mine).
It's really the older generation that promote this. If you're 35 years old, chances are your dad walked out of high school into the same large company that he retired from. Why would they need mobility when they had jobs for life?
The only younger people I know that share that view are close-minded and never see the point of leaving Smalltown, USA.
To be fair, if you can find a way to make good money in a small town, you'll be living a more comfortable life than most people in big cities. If the attractions of a big city don't actually attract you, then sometimes moving to one is, economically, a bad decision.
My parents have a big house in a small town and for over a decade they owned and operated a local gas station. They were "rich," even though they didn't make a lot of money by NYC or SV standards. Do you know how much the house cost them? A little over $100k. Just let that sink in.
Only if you include metros like Atlanta in your definition of Smalltown, USA. Most American cities are geared towards home ownership.
It really depends where you live. Here in Pittsburgh you can buy a decent house for $150k. Meanwhile, rent in that same area is $1000 for something similar. In this case, even if there was zero appreciation, the amount you pay on interest, repairs, etc... is less then the amount you would have spent on rent, but everyone should take the time to make these calculations for themselves. There was no amount of math that made a 1,500 sqft house in Calfornia at $1 mil (during the boom) better then renting.
I should also mention the area I'm thinking of has high demand for rent, so your mobility isn't really limited as you'd be able to rent out at a profit almost immediately.
Which also has a cost... You are not negating risk by buying insurance. You are simply offloading it to another party and paying them money on a regular basis. At the end of the day, it's still an expense.
Everyone I talk to who owns is constantly upgrading or replacing or fixing something in their house. It seems, on average, home maintenance is about 66-75% of my rent check; and that isn't money they get back. It just prevents their home price from falling.
I recently moved, and the landlord (who was broke) was trying to keep money for all sorts of non-existent faults, most of which were due to his shoddy DIY work before I moved in. I raised a dispute and eventually got the vast majority of the money back. Just make sure you keep pictures of the state of the house before you move your stuff in.
I don't have kids but one benefit I get from owning a house is I can do pretty much what I want to it without having to get permission for it from a landlord and it affords more space for entertaining friends and allowing me to build things so I think that statement is a bit short-sighted.
You are right though about the mindless promotion and the dubious investment potential. Unless you specialize in real estate investment, houses are primarily a place to live and you have to determine the value that you would get out of it from that standpoint.
Btw, I don't agree with your last point. It's pretty much possible to stay in a rented apartment for 5 years at a time quite easily. And kids go through wrenching changes every five years on average (home->kindergarten->middle->high school).
You make good points about the drawbacks of buying a house. However, the ability to lock in your housing expenses for the next 30 years (i.e., no impact of inflation) shouldn't be underestimated. IMHO.
Just to be clear, that 7% is after inflation. The historical performance of the stock market is closer to 10-11% pre-inflation.
> The only time a house makes sense is when raising kids.
Retirement is of course another scenario where it makes sense. Mobility won't be nearly as important (indeed it may be totally irrelevant), and you won't have any rent or mortgage payments if you own your house.
The thing is that I don't plan to retire in San Francisco or NYC. I plan on retiring in the south or midwest. Housing is so "cheap" there compared to salaries in tech hubs that as long as you're saving a reasonable amount of cash (say $1k minimum) every month (on top of retirement accounts and investments in stocks and bonds), you'll easily be able to just go buy a decent house in a cheap area for cash when you're ready to settle down in retirement.
Is it absolutely the most efficient path, financially? I don't know, but it sure does make everything simple, as you'll have maximum mobility during your career. I can't tell you how many people I know who have basically stunted their careers due to buying homes. Money is certainly not the end goal in life, not even close, but lots of people I know could double their earnings if they weren't locked down to one location.
Likewise, many companies could have lower labor expenses if they'd embrace telecommuting and locate branches (or HQ) in lower cost of living areas.
I'm just starting my career, but one of my big goals is to achieve the above either through a traditional remote development role or through independent consulting. The problem is stability--the most stable tech companies don't tend to hire remote devs, and consulting is inherently unstable, although I suppose if you work hard at the top of your game it wouldn't be much of an issue.
It doesn't have to be telecommute - mid-senior developers can get jobs making $70-$80k in many major areas around the US (Minneapolis, Raleigh, Atlanta, Nashville, are just some I know of off the top of my head). Junior devs with no experience would probably be hard pressed to start off much over $50-60k in those areas, although there may be exceptions.
Consulting may be 'unstable' in that you'll have periods where you're not billing - at first that'll be because you have nothing else lined up. Later, it'll be by choice - you'll scheduled out breaks between engagements, and have a bit of a life in between. And you'll have charged enough, and budgeted your earnings enough such that it won't matter to your day to day living.
I would suggest that if you do the consulting/contracting route, that you be willing to travel. I know people can't always sell a house and move, but most people can get a car or plane to visit clients on a regular basis - it helps a lot to solidify relationships. And I'm surprised at how many people who want to do independent consulting remotely focus way too much on the remote part and not enough on the independent and consulting parts, then wonder why they can't find clients.
Keep your eyes and ears open for opportunities - they sometimes come up in places you wouldn't expect (both geographic and industry).
Actually, people can. Immigrants are notorious for doing that in the US. If you're willing to rearrange your perceptions of what can be done... you could definitely have 3-5 people in a 800-900 sq. ft apartment. :-)
Me too. But I believe that the cramped apartment is worth keeping open as an option.
I ask because I'm seriously looking into transitioning into consulting over the next few years. I'm a little dissatisfied with the developer wages in Texas in comparison to the cost of living inside the city (Houston, probably similar to Austin). The wages are great in comparison to the suburbs or further out, but I don't want to commute 1.5-2 hours every day if I can help it.
At the same time, I really don't want to commute and don't feel comfortable spending more than double my salary on a house (I don't want to be "house poor").
In striving to satisfy all these desires simultaneously, I'm led to the consideration of consulting in the next few years. A few posters (patio11 and a few others I don't remember) here on HN have convinced me that, if done right, consulting can be a path to financial independence without the unpredictability of the startup "lottery". The idea, I hope, is that through partially remote consulting work one can make a wage which is disproportionately high compared to the cheap area in which one lives. It remains to be seen if any of this speculation is actually true.
This is precisely what I've done with my life for the last five years. It works, on one condition: you must find, connect with, and sell the Right Kind Of Customers for it to work.
If you're just a programmer (which, of course, Patrick famously recommends against identifying as), you are competing against every other "programmer" with your list of bullet-point skills, many in places a lot cheaper than even your "cheap area in which one lives"— e.g. eastern Europe, former Soviet states, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages
The trick is to position, market, and brand yourself as a specialized, boutique consultancy that incorporates various highly-sought-after technical skills in a complete "special sauce" package for businesses to achieve business-ey goals. People LOVE good abstractions, and are willing to pay for them. Be a problem solver/revenue increaser, not a "programmer". If you try to compete on a specific, easily-defined technical skillset, you'll lose to vast hordes of internet-connected Romanians, Latvians, and Ukranians every time - they can maintain a very comfortable standard of living at prices way below what you could offer your services for.
Because of my wife's business (she's a violin teacher with a large, productive studio) and because commuting is not something that I am willing to do, I feel compelled to find clients for remote work.
While it'd be fun to move to Austin and I feel like I could find a stable "good" job there pretty quickly, I like working for myself and ironically (as a musician- It's as profitable side business for me) there are probably more paying music gigs out here in the sticks.
About three years ago, I started out doing brochure marketing sites for a shyster local "social media" salesman who knew very little about web marketing but who loved to sell. At the time, my skills were basically photoshop, the (relatively extensive) programming classes I had as a child in high school, and some knowledge of markup.
I did about 80 sites for the guy over 8 months plus countless odd jobs like domain name transfers, troubleshooting email problems, writing annoying forms (the first routine I wrote that really solved a problem for me was a short bit to take a keyed array of field names and labels to generate/validate/process a form based off those values)... I spent almost all my free time on educating myself about whatever I though would be useful, and built sites for myself and some "on the side" clients in Joomla, Drupal, and WordPress.
I also had to hire and help manage a three-person technical team and deal with all the over promising that the sales guy would do. This was a good education in and of itself.
At the end of that period, I reasoned that the sales guy/owner could sell websites not knowing how they worked, I could probably sell 1/10th the number of websites and double my income. So I sold two local web sites and quit... it didn't hurt that my income was already only around $16/hr with no benefits, so replacing that was not a big deal.
For the next six months, I sold more sites and did a whole lot of cold calling and contacting folks via craigslist, and found an agency client who would pay 20/hr and give me plenty of work, and then using the same process I found an agency who would pay 30/hr, and for the last year I've been at around 65/hr and as busy as I'd like to be.
Mostly, after the first few craigslist clients, my new business comes from personal referrals. It doesn't hurt that I make myself very available, I'm quite friendly, and I do a whole lot of free consultation that I consider to be business development-- people are really happy to direct work to folks who are helpful.
I don't usually sell work directly; mostly I work with agencies in Austin who are marking up what I am doing by around 50%.
I brought in around 65K last year, which is not great, but I also worked a lot of 4-day weeks (if I don't count checking in and doing a half hour of work on a late Friday, or occasionally spending a Sunday reworking something that had to be done ASAP) and I usually am able to do my work in two 3-hour sessions... still no benefits, but I am young and paid off a substantial chunk of the student loans accrued pursuing an unfortunate PhD in English.
By studying consistently, playing with new technologies, and being willing to take on a lot of work on odd jobs troubleshooting stuff, I've gotten to where I can build modules for Magento or aMember, themes and plugins for WordPress, and generally working in clean, patterns that seem elegant and satisfying.
I've learned how to deploy AWS EC2s, how to work on the *nix command lines, git, ssh, enough SQL to understand joins and how to root through a database and make changes to an entire managed site at once... nothing awesome or special, but stuff I find interesting and fun.
My feeling is that I have just started getting a "good" grasp on programming, but if I can keep this going for another couple of years then I might actually get good at programming... I'm getting a little tired of doing marketing oriented work, but to be honest my skills up to the last year really weren't all that unique (other than the fact that people like working with me for whatever various reasons).
I hope that is helpful for you... as I said, I am currently idled for personal reasons and am both cleaning out my development machine, the last couple of projects on my plate... and reevaluating what I'm doing, so it was helpful for me to write all that out.
Can you link to something backing this claim up? I was thinking the wise/old 7% saying is in nominal, not real, dollars.
In the state of Maryland for example It's my understanding that property taxes on the first $300k of assessed value for primary residences are adjusted based on your income[0] for households making less than $60k per year. (for reference 300k will get you a pretty nice place in a trendy part of the city) The end result is you could be living in a $300k house and pay zero or near zero property tax. So you could for example buy a place straight out of college rent out the spare rooms to pay off the mortgage at a very accelerated pace and then if you wanted to you could live in that house basically property tax free once the mortgage is paid off so long as you didn't make too much money. I'm not sure if you've looked at your living cost structure but once you knock out mortgage and property tax you have an extreme amount of flexibility in terms of how much money you need to make to live comfortably and the types of career risks you could take w/o having to worry about ending up on the street. You have to be smart about what you buy and at what price of course which is where most people fail at smart decisions when home buying but if you do it right it really can be a no brainier.
-Mobility. When you need to exit a house and relocate, you can do so without waiting for a lease to expire. If you are in the right market, you can rent the first home out while you migrate, then sell it once the dust has settled.
Yeah, instead you need to find a buyer, which in most places is not an easy task, especially in a housing market flooded with cheap foreclosed homes. In addition, you have to hope that the house has not depreciated in value during your ownership - which can happen due to factors totally outside your control (such as foreclosures in your neighborhood).
In other words: if you need to move, don't count on having the ability to sell your house quickly and without loss.
And in 10 years, who knows what rent will be? I know what my house payment will be, modulo possible changes in tax and insurance rates.
Not all markets are like that, but in some cases it does make sense to buy a house.
Not sure what you mean by 'get $1k back from every month you paid off mortgage'
Here's rough justice. $300K, 6%, 30 yr fixed mortgage.
Annual payment is $22K(about your 2K/month) for the life of the mortgage.
Avg int over the first 5 years is $17.5K.
So after the first five years you've accumulated $22K in equity.
If your house goes down 50% you own a $150K house with a $278K mortgage.
Incredibly stupid example. Embarrassing really. Objection withdrawn
Here in outer London, rental prices are pretty much in line with the interest payments on a mortgage. So you're "throwing away" the same amount whether you're renting or not. I'd have thought this would become a natural equilibrium in most places. If rental prices are significantly more than the interest payments on a mortgage then owning will seem more attractive.
Mortgage still has value in that it gives you the opportunity to invest that in a house if that's something you want to do.
As a useful durable good, sure houses have value, but renting accomplishes the same purpose (of giving you a place to live).
Here's a story from an acquaintance (don't know him that well, so may or may not be apocryphal, but it seems plausible). For a period of 2 years he worked at Home Depot to pay the bills, and did a bit of puttering around on tech side projects on the side. Not really any kind of business, just for fun mostly. So he listed that honestly: Home Depot was in the employment section, and a few side projects that had become releasable were listed under projects.
Later, he changed his resume. He removed Home Depot from the resume entirely, because he had gotten the impression that working a retail job while post-college-age carried a stigma, at least if you were looking for "professional" jobs rather than other retail jobs. To explain what he was doing in those two years, he grouped together those side projects as an "unsuccessful startup". Big improvement in responses.
I'm almost positive you could have inserted complete gibberish into every other line of the accomplishments/bullet points, and still have passed muster if you'd had enough big names on the page.
Of course, that was 5-6 years ago. These days, we also have computer filters to deal with. To some extent, these filters can be "SEO'ed" with the right combination of keywords, and the right percentage of linguistic overlap between job listing and resume. But on the flip side, they're almost certain to be very harsh and uncaring to employment gaps, unknown companies or brand names, and non-standard job titles.
10+ years ago I remember reading a study in Europe that showed the rate of unemployment was directly proportional to the rate of home ownership across the entire EU with a very high correlation. Spain had the highest rate of home ownership and unemployment. Britain (then) had the lowest for both.
We push home ownership as a political agenda. While it has benefits for creating stable communities it also creates an inflexible labour market as people won't move to where the jobs are.
Beyond just the correlation with unemployment, it also results in the FIRE sector wielding far too much power over your economy and politics. When political effort goes into bolstering the stability of real-estate to keep all the homeowners afloat, that's the real-estate brokers, the landlords, the banks, and the insurance companies getting the boost.
No, unemployment and home ownership may be tangentially linked but one does not relate directly to the other.
This is how the unemployment rate matches up for both countries.
https://www.google.fr/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&...
Notice a difference? Spain, and a lot of European countries, have some archaic debt laws. Where even if you could move to where the jobs are, the mortgage on the house you no longer own is still on your back. So you could take another job but half your income is going to service that old debt. This contrasts pretty well with the way the US and UK handle debt; you invested, the investment failed, liquidate everything, and then move on.
Someone takes on a debt using property as security, if they forfeit the security why should they be excused from the difference between the value of the security and the value of the debt?
The whole price of the loan (interest rate, points, etc...) was based upon the home being the only recoverable asset in the case of default.
This is why most loans with less than 20% equity have to pay primary mortgage insurance. If your house declines in value, you probably have an agreement that PMI kicks it. The lender being the beneficiary if the PMI has to pay off.
Theoretically this both protects the borrower from predatory practices and encourages the lender to make quality loans.
I've also heard people who will simply pick a company that went out of business where references or verification aren't even possible.
I get the argument about the risk's being mitigated over time by the downside of being unemployed for 6+n months. Mathematically, sure, this starts making sense after awhile. But it seems much less risky just to invent (or hey, attempt to start) a fictitious company than to lie about having been employed by a real one, defunct or otherwise.
Over the last few years it's more like they can't move to where the jobs are, at least not without taking a huge loss on a house or declaring bankruptcy.
But yeah, you're right - we've got a rather immobile labor market, for a variety of reasons, and there don't seem to be any quick fixes. telecommuting you'd think would help, but it's not applicable to every single job, and even places that do allow for it don't necessarily orient their culture to take full advantage of it.
For example, I've had recruiters contact me about the same/similar positions in the DC and NYC suburbs, where I'd only make $7k-10k (if I was lucky) more than my current position (in a middle market city). Why would my fiance (who would have to quit her job as well and find new work) and I leave for peanuts? I'd also lose any time base perks at my current employer as well.
If companies/recruiters are expecting people to move for "same job, same pay" then there's your reason for an immobile work force. Add to that what you mention - many would have to take a loss on their home when they wouldn't have too.
There's many managers who'll employ you if they suspect it's a lie so they'll have something against you if they want to get rid of you quickly later on. So the trick is to make up a lie that'll fool the HR filters but not the sociopath managers who'll employ you to be their bitch.
Social proof takes many form. It's why MIT and Stanford CS grads have tech companies come to their campuses and throw money at them (these institutions don't have a monopoly on good engineers). It's why if you have Google/Facebook/Twitter on your CV you are pretty much guaranteed a job. It's why academic staff who have a Harvard degree have a much easier time than those that don't.
How long you've been out of work is more social proof. Were I in this situation I would absolutely without a second's doubt invent fictitious employment and get a friend to back up any reference check and I wouldn't feel the least bit bad about it. I know employers are filtering on superficial things and those that have had difficulty finding work is a pretty quick and easy filter.
There is another side of this that the article doesn't touch on: home ownership.
10+ years ago I remember reading a study in Europe that showed the rate of unemployment was directly proportional to the rate of home ownership across the entire EU with a very high correlation. Spain had the highest rate of home ownership and unemployment. Britain (then) had the lowest for both.
We push home ownership as a political agenda. While it has benefits for creating stable communities it also creates an inflexible labour market as people won't move to where the jobs are.