This article is a joke. Basically saying "hey be happy you don't own a home if you want one". Piss off.
I think it does describe some real problems. But the implied solution of forcing more people into the serfdom-like rental market is far worse than the problems they outline.
These problems become small when housing is affordable, so that seems the best policy to pursue. When everyone can easily afford a home, the decision of when to rent or buy can depend on personal preference and circumstance without the distortions created by housing as an investment vehicle.
Basically saying “hey be happy you don’t own a home if you want one”
What parts of the article gave you that impression? The article points out that property ownership has "become the primary means of American middle-class wealth creation" and "homeownership has created a class of winners". Neither of those support your summary.
What got from the article is that property ownership is the primary type investment for Americans and home owners have little to no financial incentives in selling their homes but rather their in seeing housing and rental prices continue going up.
I think the problem is the rate isn't high enough. Too many homes are owned by people who already have a home and are using their second, third, fourth homes as sources of income while their primary home is seen as their retirement plan. At the same time, the people who own extra homes are opposed to building high occupancy buildings to create cheaper housing in the same area. You have corporations buying up hundreds of houses only to rent them out. Those get taken off the market, which raises the cost of houses in general.
If you stop corporations from owning single family homes and duplexes, stop foreign investors from buying real estate at all, place a very high tax on owning more than 2 houses, and place higher taxes on short term rentals like Airbnb then you will drop the value of houses by a ton while also generating tax funds that could build high occupancy buildings for lower rent values. Too many people have the ability pay for affordable houses but can't, because too many homes are owned as income for either people or corporations.
I already know the answer from conservatives to this one: "SoCiaLisM"
Yeah, but it sucks because it is kind of anti-socialism. It is saying houses belong to individuals, not the state or corporations. However, it does have the flavor of common people seizing the means of production from the bourgeois.
The self fulfilling prophecy of the housing market is that people who own homes tend to have more wealth and vote in higher numbers. Politicians don't want to piss them off, home prices can't be perceived to be attacked.
The argument is mostly valid. But the real point is that capital gains tax needs to change. That would solve the stated problem, without reducing home ownership.
As a result, a majority of the population is literally invested in seeing the value of homes always go up.
This is actually not true. In general, ome owners do not benefit from global house price increases.
