Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9w82bv wrote

>Its only pedantic if the detail is irrelevant.

... being pedantic is basically brooding over minor relevant details.

I completely agree that the chart you provided directly addresses the first portion of my comment I made better than the comment I provided.

What I am trying to point out to you is that my second line of commentary was addressing my broad concern regarding reddit perceptions regarding homeownership, rather than for homeownership for millennials specifically. Even a slightly charitable interpretation would recognize that once pointed out. I've pointed out that I made two separate statements that should be evaluated as such multiple times. You refuse to view it from this perspective. Look at how this comment (and my others) are structured. This is a comment section, not a peer reviewed paper. Some generous parsing and interpretation are generally required.

It doesn't take a stretch of imagination to figure out that redditors seem to perceive home ownership is out of reach for most people. I was attempting to point out that perception isn't grounded in reality.


Centrismo t1_j9wcwyc wrote

Sorry for being dismissive and combative. The more I’m researching the less clear the picture appears to be. Take another look at your original chart.

Notice “The homeownership rate is the proportion of households that is owner-occupied.” The homeownership rate doesn’t actually tell us much about per capita home ownership, just the rental rate for houses. The link I provided used the same homeownership metric.

Im struggling to find the actual number of people who live in a house they own, but we can extrapolate from the homelessness rate and apartment rental rate. This article seems like a good summary:

Compare those rental numbers to the total homeless population:

Seems like the per capita number of homeowners is declining. Further, considering wages aren’t keeping up with inflation and housing cost increases are outpacing inflation this paints a picture that home ownership is becoming less accessible.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9wfewj wrote

If you realllly want to argue this, I'm happy to do so. You're cherry picking (aka intentionally arguing). Given your passion (which I admire), I suspect you seem to believe the U.S. is uniquely bad for first-world countries. I strongly recommend that you look at homelessness rates (which you raised as an issue) for the U.S. against other developed countries. You'll find that the U.S. actually performs better than some peer countries (again, despite reddit opinions).

Homelessness (per 10K)

UK - 54.4

Australia - 49.1

Sweden - 36

US - 17.5

Denmark - 11

Iceland - 10

In the U.S. homelessness rates correlate almost perfectly with drug usage rates. I'm not trying to knock people who use drugs, but you can't exactly ignore "other factors" when they don't confirm your perceptions.

You seem (forgive me here) very invested in the idea where US = bad without sufficient evidence. This is a very common reddit perspective.


Centrismo t1_j9whc0y wrote

I think you can demonstrate that homeownership is becoming less accessible over time.

I don’t think the america=bad trope is valid though.

From my perspective I think a decline in home ownership is the expected and inevitable result of increasing urbanization and the inherent logistical challenges of building high population density cities. Its a trend that we can observe in most if not all countries. Thats not necessarily bad, its just a societal transition from the suburban to urban.

The homeless rate has been declining, which indicates that the housing situation is improving. However when compared to the increase in rental rates for apartments and the relatively stagnant rental rates for houses we can only say that the number of housed individuals is increasing, we cannot say the number of home owners is increasing.

The links I provided above show the per capita rate of home ownership is declining overtime while the per capita rate of renters is increasing, at least over the last 20 years. Personally I think we should try to reverse this trend, but it may not be logistically possible at our population level.

My general impression is that we are heading toward an era where the majority of people are renters and I think we can expect a further class divide to emerge between renters and owners. This is not unique to America, but rather a consequence of the global trend toward high density urban development and exacerbated by the neoliberal economic policies that have been dominant since the 80s that have caused wages to decouple from the inflation rate.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9wi7nr wrote

I think you can demonstrate that homeownership is becoming less accessible over time.

... My original comment that seemed to cause you so much heartburn literally showed homeownership rates have increased since the 60s. Take the opinions out of the equation...

Aside from that, I show you the U.S. is better regarding homelessness compared with supposedly "better" countries and you immediately shift the goal post...

>My general impression is that we are heading toward an era where the
majority of people are renters and I think we can expect a further class
divide to emerge between renters and owners.

How can you possibly arrive at that conclusion when your initial complaint was over my source which showed that homeownership rates have actually increased since the 1960s....

You're a hammer in search of nails.


Centrismo t1_j9wkyhi wrote

I guess you didn’t look at your original source again like I asked. It does not track the number of people who own homes. That chart tracked the “homeownership rate” which is specifically the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner of the home.

Hypothetically If you have 100 people and 50 of them live in a house, of those 50 lets say 25 own the home and 25 rent the home, then the per capita rate of people that own homes would be 25% while the “homeownership rate” as defined by your source would be 50%.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9wlmi4 wrote

Oh my gosh. My guy... you're being needlessly pedantic here. I showed you **RATES** by country. Do you understand what that means?

I've taught undergrads, grads, doctoral students for over a decade and, to be honest, you're possibly the most stubborn person I've encountered in my life.

You do you. Good luck. You win! You're the best ever. Whatever.


Centrismo t1_j9wmmla wrote

Please address the previous comment. You do see how the home ownership rate does not track the total number of people who own a home right? Im worried that a teacher cant interpret the sources they are providing correctly. If we interpret your source the way that you are it implies that there are more homeowners in the US than there are homes. You read the chart wrong.

What it actually says is that out of all the homes in the US polled by the census X percent of them were occupied by the home owner. That is not the same thing as X percent of all people in the country own a home. The homeownership rate can increase while the per capita rate of home ownership decreases.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9wq679 wrote

... what do you think "rate" means...


Centrismo t1_j9wqidh wrote

Please stop assuming Im an idiot, I know what rate means. The “home ownership rate”, As Defined By Your Source, measures the percent of homes that are owned by one of the occupants. It does not measure the percent of the population that owns a home.

Do I need to screen cap the part of your source’s notes that specifies that for you or do you genuinely not understand why those two measures are different?


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9xs2pw wrote

You've spent over a dozen comments arguing a point I was right about and a second point you misinterpreted. I think we can stop here.


Centrismo t1_j9xu5rp wrote

You’re not qualified to be a teacher if that’s truly what you’re taking away from this exchange. Im genuinely floored you can’t understand me, I’ve made it so clear.


DD_equals_doodoo t1_j9xuk2g wrote

I have a Ph.D. and publish. According to accreditation standards, I'm pretty sure I'm good to go in terms of qualification.