Backblaze truely is the best. The alternative is carbonite but it isnt a public company. Backblaze is public which allows me to feel more secure that my backups are safe. Since I can see how much cash they have remaining on hand. Also backblaze allows for recovering files you accidentally deleted up to 1 year ago. Or recovering files that you end up saving after deleting something important in them. You effectively get a daily version history of files for up to a year. It also works with hardrive files like those that exist as part of WSL, meaning it works for developers too who develop using a hypervisored OS.

The link in the video description is not clickable, but here it is. 🤔KZfaq is acting weird

You forgot two more theories: a) The Homevoter Hypothesis by William Fischel, and b) see the video entitled "Why Is the Rent So Damn High? The Real Reason Will Shock You"

House to expensive for new family . Old rich people have 4 home As an investment. Increase house prices

Easily prohibited from owning more than 2 houses can reduce house prices. With Thousand of rich people forced to sell their 3rd and 4th homes

Affording our mortgage is tough as well. I have suggested cashing in, renting or relocating, and investing the rest in the stock market.

If you can afford to relocate, you should manage the mortgage.

if you are looking to invest in the stock market, I suggest you Consider a fiduciary with mortgage-backed securities knowledge for guidance. Prices today may look like dips tomorrow.

Thats true, working with a financial advisor has been a game-changer for me. They provided invaluable insights and tailored strategies that aligned perfectly with my risk tolerance and financial objectives. With their support, I've seen significant growth in my investments and gained confidence in my financial future.

this is all new to me, where do I find a fiduciary, can you recommend any?

And the real interest rate was a lot lower than the nominal one, so if your income increased with inflation, it would be (relatively) more affordable. And before buying a house, you could deposit your money and be at the receiving end of the high nominal interest rates.

Because there is an inverse relationship between the two due to the increase in demand. However, demand can be decreased by limiting citizens to purchase one house and banning foreign residents to purchase houses.

My parents took advantage of this. They struggled with their high payments with an 18% loan for several years, but then refinanced a couple times as interest rates went down.

The high interest/low price scenario has several other advantages. 1. The interest is what you write off on your taxes (this is huge). 2. It requires less time to accumulate the down payment (also huge, it sucks for younger people to need to save 150k before they can get in the game).

Ah...good observation

Singapore does a lot of things right - because it was fortunate to start that way. I lived in Singapore, rented in NYC and own in Canada. Landlord and bank lobbies in either countries would never let these see the light of day! On the other hand, we have much cheaper cars 😊

And also prevents all but the most insanely rich foreigners from buying homes with a 60% stamp duty. Yep. Six Zero. 😹

This is false. Singapore is one of the faster appreciating markets for investment. It is only difficult for the newer investor, because it will be challenging to find cash flowing properties for cheap. Fundamentals are all the same. Large cities with dense urban populations have some of the most expensive and unaffordable real estate in the world. NYC, Hong Kong, London, and Tokyo are examples of this.

This is the correct way. Housing is a basic human need that should be kept away from speculation.

@@OurLordandSaviorSigmar Needs vs Wants. What I keep hearing is that we NEED affordable housing where we WANT to live.

Same here, we had a federal founding to foot half of the cost of a public transportation system but people got angry and asked for another bridge that won't be built instead......so we ended up with nothing ( aside the hundreds of millions and countless wasted hours on studies ) and my brain hurts.

In Australia NIMBYs are part of the problem. And there are many other parts too. Eg1 taxing property when purchased/sold. This discourages empty nesters from downsizing. That would add supply of rooms to the market. Removing this disincentive to moving would save the government on transportation infrastructure costs too. Eg2 the family home is exempt from government pension tests. This provides an incentive for empty nesters to stay in a larger house than they need. Eg3 tax advantages for workers to invest in land (including land with homes on it). Unfortunately this pulls investment away from productivity investment in business. Eg4 an economic system that relies on population growth to fund the aged pension and aged care. Eg5 infrastructure investment taking demand for tradespeople and materials - increasing the cost of building new homes And probably many other factors that I have missed.

Because expanded public transport gives criminals access to decent neighborhoods. And public transit is where bums go to sleep, and certain demographics go to collect "reparations".

Public transit gives cri*m*nals access to decent neighborhoods. Decent people don't want that.

People are allowed to not want their neighbourhood completely changed, or in some cases destroyed and residents forced out, for infrastructure of debatable merit that they obviously don't want. Not to mention other, very suspect policies. To suggest otherwise makes you anti-democratic. You are blaming something that doesn't really exist, your fixation on 'NIMBYs' which is not actually a phenomenon in this country but something you imported from the internet as a fantastical ideological opponent. The term was created and fundamentally is about characterising locals having a say in what happens to where they live as somehow regressive, and that they should just shut up and let those in power, or corporations, do whatever. It's very telling that the term is originally and most commonly applied to neighbourhoods with a high standard of living, low crime, and strong community spirit (not to say you use it in this way though). i.e. neighbourhoods that are politically very self-determining. Who don't just accept abuses and mismanagement. Rather than about the merits of specific infrastructure. So perhaps try getting people on board, if the merits are truly clear, and not imposing a group that doesn't exist as a way of dehumanising everyone or explaining why something didn't happen when the real reason may be something else, like some bureaucrat just deciding not to? Or upon conducting studies, realising it wasn't a good idea?

Also means top of a bubble. When people are buying gold at Costco , gold prices are maxing out. 40-50 year olds should not be buying real estate at top prices because of their age. If I was 20ish I would stay renting( and get the wife on onlyfans to make extra cash). ''Your house dreams will happen faster'', you can argue back to her.

I'm indeed your 40-50+ category: secondary real-estate in and around big cities remains a stable investment with a reasonable yield being the rent plus possible appreciation. Stocks are often too volatile and too easy to tax in Europe because most voters do not own a lot of stocks, so many voter agree with high tax on stocks to tax the rich. If however regulators propose to put heavy taxes on secondary real-estate, it will impact too many secondary real-estate owners and they will not win elections. Housing prices may temporarily go down, which is fine. You still have the rent. New construction will hold and a few years later there will be a shortage again boosting the housing prices back up. Houses and land in and around big cities are scarce and will likely remain scarce over the long run as the world population keeps growing. Best is to not buy a the top of a bubble but for the rest you will be ok. If you do not have a lot of money you can start by buying a parking place of a student flat which you can rent to other people while at the same time you rent your own apartment.

I agree and I also think that this is what they get wrong in te video. Investment appartments don't have to be empty. Middle class and upper middle class buyers ususally rent them, wither long term, AirBnB or to a company that rents it to others.

​@richardbloemenkamp8532 what makes you think you aren't "the rich", my guy. I'm in your group too. These kids are paying your mortgage(s) (if you have them) and your social security (if you can collect), and maybe your healthcare (if you qualify). And, what are they getting out of it? Probably not a lot more than poorer. Top it all off, social security is horribly insolvent so they pay in to something for which they'll never see a return. No wonder why they're upset.

Landlords should not be allowed to do that with homes. It's one thing to rent out a warehouse, it's another thing to buy out homes and rent them out. It's going to cripple the country.

Rates mean absolutely nothing, and serve to distract. It literally has no impact whatsoever, as it’s a percent x base, the base being price. 90% rate on a $10,000 house is much better than 1% rate on a $900,000 house. The only thing that matters, is the price that’s locked in.

I'm no economist so I'm not sure if this is correct but for australia, house price to income ratio went from 3.5 in 1980s to 6+ today. Wouldn't this mean mortgages in the country would be harder to obtain, therefore muting the point posed by the IMF on mortgage repayments.

The fact that we need low interest rates for things to be affordable is itself a massive red flag that things are going wrong. It means our economy has a very weak foundation, and massively inflates risk in a way that we may not be able to mitigate next time. We've been living beyond our means for decades while making raising the bar to enter into society so high that many aren't able to reach it. Something is going to have to give.

Another thing is that banks don't lent you the whole amount, so you need to save some part of the price in advance. This is much easier when the price of the house is lower, you can save the money more easily and the mortage is then much more accesible to you.

​@@7fall I think you get interest rates wrong. The rate is NOT calculated from price of the house but its percentage of how much your unpaid debt growths every year. If mortgage loan was $10,000 with 90% rate and loan term 30 years, your total payment would be $270,000 (it's less $900,000 but it's still more than you might expect).

The innate crux of why properties in Canada, and Australia - and, this is also true for England, as opposed to Britain; likewise with the US, too - is irrefutably due to one factor, and that is buttressed in large-scale immigration programs. This is then exacerbated with supply not keeping up with demand. So, all of the other aspects, which are espoused by the host and, indeed, with all those people posting comments regarding this, that or something else (although certainly having validity) is ostensibly just waffling on in a sea of self-serving semantics. Because in any of these jurisdictions that are fully dependent upon fueling their GDP’s via importing consumers, if enough properties aren’t constructed to cope with demand, then the dire side-effect is OVER PRICED properties. David Ricardo and, particularly with Henry George, were theorizing and espousing comments and, indeed, warnings on all of the negative nuances impacting real estate prices. Apropos to Henry George, way back in 1881 - two years after his book, ‘Progress and Poverty’ was published he told a senate hearing during the Garfield administration that: “The overt essence of why property values should in crease is a result of productivity, and not speculation.” Alas, here we are over 140 years after Henry George wrote ‘Progress and Poverty’ and, also, 207 years since David Ricado wrote the ‘Law of Rent’, we have politicians and captains of industry in Australia, Canada, Britain, and the US who missed reading their perspectives. But there is a far, far greater detriment to consider for all of these nations that have implemented large-scale, and, moreover, non-discriminatory immigration schedules. And that is to ponder the severe sociological impairments that will come to bear upon these societies being fractured on race, culture and, worst of all, religion. Quite simply, immigrant groups from non-Anglo/European and, more so, non-Christian cradles have been over the past 20-30 years that they have become culturally insular colonies/enclaves. Thus, it’s only a short time away before these groups organise against these societies in their own parliaments. To garner this pending horror most assuredly comes to pass in Britain, with hundreds of thousands of Muslims rallying in pro-Palestinian, and anti-Israel rallies from the middle of October.

@@markferguson7563 sure, well...that's how it is, for sure. glad to hear everything else is OK for ya, though! just be thankful there's no Mongols just over your hilltop!

The average fixer upper home costs about 1.5 million so the average person makes just under $60,000 a year so that's 25 times gross income as single people still exist. Of course after you pay all the taxes and everything else it works out to about 100 times whatever income is leftover.

​​@@markferguson7563 ok now summarize this in a single sentence cause it's easy to misunderstand and most aren't gonna bother to read lol. I got "the immigrants are to blame, fuck em lol" from this, does that sound about right? Fancy words don't make the sentiment any better or more justified. If I misunderstood then please correct.

Depends where you are and your spending habits, im putting 20% down atm on a 134k house with minimal repairs needed, i only make like 25k a year and saved for 5 or so years

100% agree. That is why I follow this channel!

Check out Gary's Economics instead, he's much better

I find Dr. Joeri's videos are hit and miss. Like this video for example, I dont see any proper conclusion - we saw some data, discussed possible factors, thats it. To get some conclusions I would have to dig through the data myself. Also, after mentioning the IMF study, it would be nice to know what you personally think of it, do you endorse it, or you find some flaws.

He is missing another big factor...mass immigration to Western countries.

Pppphhh, he blamed NIMBYs. Um, how about the corporate executives who created the Great Recession which created a shortage of new housing? Nah, let’s blame the middle class for everything, it’s more fun!

Ok Im from Prague so still withing the Munich metropolitan area 😀

People want to live there because there are better jobs there - so, they need not to expand the city (they try that now, with not a lot of success), they need to move some of these jobs away to other municipalities. There are some problems with that, of course - first, it goes against the traditional competitive approach, where municipalities are competing for jobs ; it might seem to hurt immediate tax returns (more jobs = more taxes) ; businesses that are to move (or even open from a start NOT in Munich) need to still pay Munich wages, or people will still go to Munich for more money. Business will know that costs for their employees are lower, so they won't do it voluntarily. Maybe something like a program where businesses are incentivized by tax subsidies (that would still be attractive after covering for still paying Munich wages) to move jobs away from Munich to other Bavarian municipalities will help here.

Yep, that is pretty much always the key. In a new suburbia, slap down a few appartment complexes here and there, maybe setup shops around it and you have already much better cities. You know... the thing that would naturally happen if we had no city "planning". What we currently have are idiotic made up divisions.

This is what Singapore has been doing for decades. It's also part of their effort to combat mono-ethnic ghettos arising too, as their policy also mandates maintaining a certain ratio of mixed ethnicities in all neighbourhoods.

Vienna didn't build anything. They expropriated the wealth of those who actually produce something, and used it to pay other producers to build housing. The role of the Vienna Government was merely redistributive. Their means was force.

@@robgrey6183 Found the Austrian (economist).

@@ArawnOfAnnwn Nah, more like the economist cope champion. These people can’t accept that their fairy tale is bs.

Tax, tax, tax. Then, tax some more. And then, wonder why things don't get better.

Please tell me how we get to there from here without confiscating everyone's wealth? That's the thing I'm interested in is someone going into depth on the transition from our tax system to a true LVT. Because any assets purchased now and earlier would lose their value in a true LVT since ultimately it would reduce the value of the land close to zero once it reached its appropriate price. That's my understanding of the benefit of the LVT. However that means that the choice to move from our system to that system would effectively destroy the value and confiscate the wealth of anyone holding land. Which is probably why I would never come to pass, obviously it would take decades to slowly move to that system and the political pushback would be massive. If we want to do it not as a tool of redistribution but as being more economically efficient we would need some sort of way to compensate the people losing the value of their land. Likely in the form of some sort of tax credit so they could still get the value lost.

@@robgrey6183 Land value taxes are often seen as a replacement for most other taxes. So a land value tax actually reduce taxation

@@stevecatpatrick8056 wouldn't land owners be compensated with lower property taxes?

​@@stevecatpatrick8056 But that IS the answer. And it should be.

sir, this is excellent summary of modern problems and urbanization. bringing in lot of immigrant workforce cannot fix this fundamental problem and city/public housing cannot build free houses below construction costs either. it comes down to distribute things also among cities better.

The innate crux of why properties in Canada, and Australia - and, this is also true for England, as opposed to Britain; likewise with the US, too - is irrefutably due to one factor, and that is buttressed in large-scale immigration programs. This is then exacerbated with supply not keeping up with demand. So, all of the other aspects, which are espoused by the host and, indeed, with all those people posting comments regarding this, that or something else (although certainly having validity) is ostensibly just waffling on in a sea of self-serving semantics. Because in any of these jurisdictions that are fully dependent upon fueling their GDP’s via importing consumers, if enough properties aren’t constructed to cope with demand, then the dire side-effect is OVER PRICED properties. David Ricardo and, particularly with Henry George, were theorizing and espousing comments and, indeed, warnings on all of the negative nuances impacting real estate prices. Apropos to Henry George, way back in 1881 - two years after his book, ‘Progress and Poverty’ was published he told a senate hearing during the Garfield administration that: “The overt essence of why property values should in crease is a result of productivity, and not speculation.” Alas, here we are over 140 years after Henry George wrote ‘Progress and Poverty’ and, also, 207 years since David Ricado wrote the ‘Law of Rent’, we have politicians and captains of industry in Australia, Canada, Britain, and the US who missed reading their perspectives. But there is a far, far greater detriment to consider for all of these nations that have implemented large-scale, and, moreover, non-discriminatory immigration schedules. And that is to ponder the severe sociological impairments that will come to bear upon these societies being fractured on race, culture and, worst of all, religion. Quite simply, immigrant groups from non-Anglo/European and, more so, non-Christian cradles have been over the past 20-30 years that they have become culturally insular colonies/enclaves. Thus, it’s only a short time away before these groups organise against these societies in their own parliaments. To garner this pending horror most assuredly comes to pass in Britain, with hundreds of thousands of Muslims rallying in pro-Palestinian, and anti-Israel rallies from the middle of October.

Problem is you don't consume land, which is usually a significant portion if not the majority of a market price level for a house anywhere near a major economic center.

@@effexon The "immigrants" who are coming in don't want to work. They want to squat, and Free S***.

The fact that most people's only chance at making money is through owning a house is a massive problem in our economy. Simply owning a house doesn't produce any wealth, beyond maybe maintaining what's there. It doesn't expand our economy or increase our supplies. It's just pure speculation. And an economy built completely around that will by definition eventually fail.

i think when you understand the fact ppl already have put a lot of monetary investment into their home with the promise they can sell it for retirement you can understand the fear of building new homes with the idea their home value will lower, the question is how can we involve current home owners in the building of new homes without destroying their retirement plan which i dont think we should take away with them. i think there could be a solution found that helps both parties, maybe a system that gives home owners in the area partial "bond" type owner ship over new properties in their area? maybe even a co-operative system where ownership is shared in the areas new transit stops are built, leading to more businesses and homes around those key areas where instead of push back we now have home owners begging for new developments in their backyard

​@@brimbles4999bs

100%. My city is doing a housing task force and were warned about a loud vocal minority pushing back & oh, that set off a ton of letters by boomers saying they weren't a minority.

@@brimbles4999 As a homeowner, I will be the first to say I have NO right to enforce zoning restrictions to benefit my retirement prospects. I bought 1 house, I don’t have the right to make others homeless and broke by trying to stop more from being built.

And I certainly don’t have the right to an ownership stake in land I didn’t buy.

True, herd mentality sucks. You mentioned returns, how do you know it's due to research and not luck? Luck in investing is often downplayed.

when its consistent, its not considered luck. research was the challenge until it led to Emily Ava Milligan, a top fund manager, her strategy made 290k into this and counting.

I pasted her name into my browser, her website popped right up. I wish I had a tangible example like yours to reference earlier. thanks for sharing

Fucking bots

But LSE says immigration has absolutely no effect on housing prices whatsoever. The BBC is very clear on this as well. Perhaps you require re-education on this topic, comrade.

@@JimmyLeeJrI don’t know about immigration having absolutely no effect on housing… don’t immigrants need a place to live? Most people need shelter and housing thus consumption for housing goes up. Immigration may not have a big effect, but it is definitely not zero.

Have you looked at the regulations suppressing building starts ? Esp the stupid greenie ones ? Let us know your thoughts

@@JimmyLeeJr Note in this context that the LSE is actually the London School of Economics and Politics, and while it is a prestigious academic institution, it has a mandate beyond the objective pursuit of knowledge -- specifically, the advancement of the objectives of the Fabian Society (wiki). Thus, its pronouncements on this issue may be driven by another agenda.

I wonder if Mainland Chinese trying to park their money outside of China (can't blame them for that) is causing a housing bubble.

That was an example of a monthly payment calculation, so you can do specific calculations for your region easily by multiplication, and more importantly, compare mortgage rates between decades. It's hard to talk about Earth in general but there are many suggestions of a "bubble" in Canada, which stands out because the majority treat housing as an investment vehicle rather than a consumption good.

Exactly, seems like this discussion always ends in xenophobia here in Toronto.

For the UK, 20% of the population is 65+, and most of this group hold houses which are almost empty. The solution is to make such houses into two apartments with separate kitchens, so that one of their kids can stay with them without losing privacy. As average kids in the UK are 1.5 which is below replacement(2.01), it is waste of making more houses and destroying the green nature. Another solution is to shift retired citizens to the countryside and rent their city houses to their kids or others, which will increase their income as well rather than keeping a big empty house for one or two people.

​@@sigrlami It's not really a bubble as a bubble generally refers to speculation and similar factors temporarily driving up the price. What is driving up prices right now appears to be a lack of places to live, which is different than a bubble as it's a lack of supply which should gradually fall off in a healthy way and not pop like a bubble.

Yes. This whole "old people shouldn't buy and rent to young people" is far off the real problem. If there are more old people try doing this move while competing to less new renters (demographics and stuff) the price would decrease, both the rent and the house prices.

Awesome

The problem you are experiencing is buying in a now developed and probably inner suburb. Ask your parents what was 'outside' of their suburb when they moved in. You may have to visit a library and obtain photos of the area to prove to yourself it was not 'the' place to be when they moved in. Cities grow. Buy where you can afford, like your parents did.

@@pauljohnson2023 I'm well aware. I was born a year after they moved and remember how this area developed. I can certainly afford it, I was just pointing out the absurdity of the situation. Oh and this has always been a decent suburb.

Yet the 2,4% of empty chinese houses are called (ghost cities).

Listed homes are likely to be empty, because they are on sale.

@@pigsnoutman Not really. Growing up, we moved 8 times over the course of about 20 years. We lived in our homes while they were listed. If houses are sitting empty while being listed, it usually means they were investment homes. The new development behind us has a whole row of these houses. As soon as they were built (before the sod went in), they had for sale signs on them and sat empty for months (three out of the 6 are still for sale). Drive through a new development near you and you'll see the same phenomenon. For sale signs on newly built houses that no one has lived in yet. These are investment properties meant to turn a profit between the time of purchase and build (which has grown significantly due to labour and materials shortages).

@@TimothyCHenderson Anecdote is not data set.

Thanks for sharing that, it's very interesting. My theory is that the throttled rate of development underlies the housing market speculation. If supply keeps going up, the idea that the property you own will net you a good return at resale becomes less promising.

I think you also miss a lot by having such a wide lens on the issue. Even country by country, you run into vast differences between housing markets in NYC and Cleveland/Ft Lauderdale.

can confirm. southern ontario housing has tripled in the past 20 years, doubled in the last 7-10. Rent has at least doubled in the past 10.

Agreed. House prices vary with interest rates and other factors; with rent prices all those factors are included.

He talks about rent at the 7 minute mark

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Zr-YacuLtqrLoqs.html

The real questions needed to be answered is: Is an exponential growth possible? Where does it stop? How dense will cities get before housing shortage is solved? How many people on Earth will exist all at the same time before it becomes a problem? 15B?

This is one of the reasons why rent control can make the market worse for newcomers.

Owners are rarely worried about condo developments unless they really are inappropriate. What people don’t want are people much outside their demographic becoming attracted to their area, and they do not want to worry about the ownership and management of large rental properties not being good neighbors. Finally, rental units have a bad habit of turning into subsidized units, and no one wants the government involved in their area. We bought a place two blocks from a section 8 housing complex. Before Covid, it was basically an old folks home. In fact, that’s what most people thought it was. After Covid, it became something akin to an unsupervised halfway house with parolees, addicts, and mental health patients who loitered constantly. All male between 18 and 45. Needless to say, it changed the character of the neighborhood from quiet residential families and retirees who all said hello to locked doors and empty houses. Fire and police are there weekly, now.

Renting a house/appartment is probably only a good idea if you are a student and dont make enough money to get a mortgage for a house. Please correct me if I'm wrong

@@jasper8291 There’s some good vids on that question, and a formula that can help you decide. I made a lot of money off of my personal homes. It’s like I never paid to live in them. OTOH, one of the most financially successful people I’ve ever known never bought real estate, and always rented.

You have a really good point there

I found this whole NIMBY point weak if not outright dishonest. There is an easy way to avoid this - build somewhere else. There is plenty of space for that. Instead they just want to destroy existing communities for a quick buck.

​​​@@DemolitionManDemolishesYour view is exactly the Nimby's view, build someplace else and there is lots of space. First, someplace else also has Nimbys and second, space is only available very far away from centers, shopping areas, only in difficult terrain, swamps, and in europe it just simply doesn't exist. Nimbys will simply have to share their area, hopefully with houses, not apartments. Actually in some countries, like here in Portugal, there are no Nimbys because courts are slow, people have little power and money talks to politicians. There is here a housing crisis because only millionaire housing is built, where the big profit is. Low income people are living 10 per apartment. Dangerous future.

@@antoniocruz8083 Well, your own comment disproves that NIMBYs are the problem. Like you said, in Portugal there are no NIMBYs, yet there is no affordable housing. So the issue must be something else. Im not a NIMBY myself, but in this particular case I sympathise - they bought their houses under one set of rules, and now being forced to accept a worse set of rules (which wont even solve the issue like we established above). Regarding the place for new buildings - lack of "free" space to build is not actually the issue. In fact, even in places like Luxembourg there is enough space to build few high-rise complexes. The actual issue is that most of people (including "poor" people) don't want to live there. That's also why China has an issue with ghost towns - they build whole new towns, but nobody wants to live there. This means people would rather spend higher portion of their monthly income, than move out. Btw, you wrote "simply have to share their area, hopefully with houses, not apartments" - that's the thing though, Joeri is talking about building apartment complexes in places where there used to be houses. Right now you cant just buy some old houses, demolish them, and build few sky-scrappers. This is blocked by zoning laws. So developers want to change these laws, and NIMBYs push against it.

I am a house owner, my mortgage is ending next year. But I fail to see how I profit from increasing value of my house. I live in it. It is not liquidity. My son will profit after I die, but that won't help me. In fact, many taxes are based on house value, so I pay more tax when my house increases in value.

Likely differ to much to be useful to a global audience

The problem is theyre extremely specific to the locality. Other than the specifics, all you can generally say about zoning is stuff like "areas zoned exclusively for single family housing vs mixed use or high density housing". That's a whole different topic honestly

and a tasty detail :)

lol, "front lawns", i.e., set backs. i have yet to see a neighborhood that adequately uses its front lawns. They just end up getting unused, collecting junk, overgrowing. A tree grows on it, if you're lucky. I think it was mostly a way to make sure density stayed low. Ironically how capitalism and socialism start mixing wants people learn they can make the rules. ;)

He discusses fewer people per household around 4:50.

Beavers aren't people🙄🤣

@@gzoechi Says who? Have you ever spoken to a beaver? They tell me so much about their lives every time I chat with them.

@@AdamEgret I think you mean a different kind of beavers, but those don't eat houses. What you do is very confusing🤯

@@gzoechi No man. Not those kinds of beavers. I'm talking about actual beavers 🦫. The only time the beavers are comfortable talking to me is after I've calmed myself down by dropping a few acid tabs. They really open up once you get to know them. Smart furry little buggers.

@@AdamEgret I'll try that. I haven't seen beavers in this area but farmers are complaining about them and recently I even saw a tree almost felled obviously by a beaver some 500m from my home, so they do exist. I hope my wife doesn't get mad when we run out of tabs quicker than usual. I'm not sure what to talk about with beavers. Houses aren't made of wood around here🤔

It's not really a policy-focused channel beyond central bank stuff, but illustrating the relationship between land rents and speculation would be nice.

@@lmao4982land value taxes could incentivise more efficient use of land. Also more efficient use of the resources that made any building on the land and even the labour used to make the building on the land. There’s a cafe near me that was open typical cafe hours for my city (morning and lunch). Another business organised to share the space, and run their own dinner business. Imagine if more spaces did this sort of thing. Rent could be spread across fewer transactions.

Gross, of course rich people only invest for themselves and don't mind squeezing the market for profits even if people go homeless

What an ass! How dare he choose what to do with his own property! The community should decide. Everyone in town should gather up and vote on what happens with his land. Just because you own something doesn't mean you have any right to do with it as you please.

You don't have the right to tell him what to do with his own property. That's not your business. He has the right to do whatever he wants with it. He should get another landscaper and leave you.

​@@rutessianhaha ikr. This "landscaper" has no right to tell anyone what to do with their own property.

Yeah that does line up with all three of the points at 1:16 tbh.

Have a good video explaining this in: how money works.

Large corporate investors are not remotely "buying up all the housing stock". The real estate market is gigantic and dominated by homeowners.

@@Yaotzin86 last quarter up to 25% were purchased by large investors, and this doesnt even include small investors who are wealthy that own between 2 and 15 properties, of which there are millions of these types of landlords

@@Yaotzin86 The 3 biggest companies in Atlanta own 20% of all housing stock...all of it. I find that to be problematic since they outbid first time owners, and they are also driving up prices by taking homes for sale out of circulation and into the rental market where they have been shown to collude and raise rents.

I'm a boomer and I agree. The homeowners in the burbs are horrified of crime and higher taxes. And of course, anybody who doesn't look like them.

​@oldstix everyone should be horrified of crimes and higher taxes lol wtf

Why would anyone (of any age) whose invested in a home and a neighbourhood want to support an initiative that would put their house in the shade, increase local traffic and congestion, overwhelm local services and increase criminal? Communities are planned for a reason…

@@oldstix this reads like an insane person wrote this. 99% of people want less crime, less taxes and less traffic.

@@windfall35 Except none of that actually happens most of the time. It’s just “a fear” people screech. If that was true then all European cities would be crime ridden. & where I live they already built the road infrastructure first to accommodate more people & it’s one of the safest areas in the country.

That would make housing affordability decline if there was, say, a food cost crisis. How is that helpful? It would just misinform people about the nature of the problem.

@@Yaotzin86 I am not sure I understand your comment. Maybe I should clarify that if the number "( Cost of Housing / (Income - other living cost) ) " is higher, it becomes less affordable. So if food cost more and everything else the same, housing affordability goes down since you have less money to pay for.

Yeah lol, it's like saying a $70k SUV is "affordable" because the dealer will finance it over 8 years.

It is literally a factor in whether a person can afford it or not. Unless you're buying cash, but how many working people buy houses with cash?

Yeah the definition is just plain stupid. It says that since interest rates are low, mortgages are now affordable. That is BS. That part of the price moved into the asset price. Higher asset price, more interest to pay, just not relative to the price. I'd love to see expensive mortgages again. They would drive down prices by a lot.

I doubt so. Europe has almost twice lower living space per person than the USA.

@@ImaskarDono Europoors have 112 people living in 1 square kilometer. USA has 37 people per square kilometer. So of course we have to share less space.

The innate crux of why properties in Canada, and Australia - and, this is also true for England, as opposed to Britain; likewise with the US, too - is irrefutably due to one factor, and that is buttressed in large-scale immigration programs. This is then exacerbated with supply not keeping up with demand. So, all of the other aspects, which are espoused by the host and, indeed, with all those people posting comments regarding this, that or something else (although certainly having validity) is ostensibly just waffling on in a sea of self-serving semantics. Because in any of these jurisdictions that are fully dependent upon fueling their GDP’s via importing consumers, if enough properties aren’t constructed to cope with demand, then the dire side-effect is OVER PRICED properties. David Ricardo and, particularly with Henry George, were theorizing and espousing comments and, indeed, warnings on all of the negative nuances impacting real estate prices. Apropos to Henry George, way back in 1881 - two years after his book, ‘Progress and Poverty’ was published he told a senate hearing during the Garfield administration that: “The overt essence of why property values should in crease is a result of productivity, and not speculation.” Alas, here we are over 140 years after Henry George wrote ‘Progress and Poverty’ and, also, 207 years since David Ricado wrote the ‘Law of Rent’, we have politicians and captains of industry in Australia, Canada, Britain, and the US who missed reading their perspectives. But there is a far, far greater detriment to consider for all of these nations that have implemented large-scale, and, moreover, non-discriminatory immigration schedules. And that is to ponder the severe sociological impairments that will come to bear upon these societies being fractured on race, culture and, worst of all, religion. Quite simply, immigrant groups from non-Anglo/European and, more so, non-Christian cradles have been over the past 20-30 years that they have become culturally insular colonies/enclaves. Thus, it’s only a short time away before these groups organise against these societies in their own parliaments. To garner this pending horror most assuredly comes to pass in Britain, with hundreds of thousands of Muslims rallying in pro-Palestinian, and anti-Israel rallies from the middle of October.

It's a little better than that. Once you retire and no longer need income, you can live in any part of the country, or a different country altogether. As the narrator explains at about the 5:00 mark, there could be some rural housing for which the demand is reduced. There is good evidence of that happening in many Canadian communities. So the downside is not retiring to your parked car, but to a community that is probably smaller than you would have liked, with less pleasant weather, and fewer services and amenities than you would have liked, and where all the friends and associates you have built up over your life do not live. I believe that Canadians have a reasonable expectation of better, and should demand it from their government, but it is a notch above living in your car.

is income tax high in austria?

@@chefscircle6133 depends on what you mean by high, but except for the highest bracket, which is set way too low, it's reasonable imo

I was born in Austria and I'm glad that I don't live in Vienna. Hardly anyone outside of Vienna likes Vienna and Viennese people, and I'm pretty sure that it's only a matter of time until the renting crisis swaps over to here, as well. So there's nothing to really praise there, as house prices in Austria are expensive just like everywhere else in Western Europe. I earn 2300€ net/month and I can't afford a car & house purchase. The only folks that can afford it are those who inherit something and sell it off. The loans are crazy. I'm actually considering leaving for a cheaper country as I'm not willing to be merely renting my whole life. I want a house, as most people.

@@chefscircle6133 crazy high and progressive as well. If you own a business or are a wealthy person, you can be taxed up to 50%!!! Compare it with Czechia right next to it, where as a business owner we pay a 8% income tax! very reasonable!

​@@chefscircle6133no, the income tax alone isn't high per se, but the overall taxation (income tax, pension tax, social security tax) can quickly amass to 40~50% of your gross income. And with quickly, I mean as soon as you earn a bit more than the average person💀

Isn't that still nimbyism?

Here in madrid most politicians, specially on the right side have a lot of real state investments themselves or their family. There is 20k people with over 11 houses themselves while most people cant aford rent or the 20% of the mortage that banks do not finance. I would say it works as they sadly, they get higher return on their investments, get the non rich people out of their neighborhoods, and the common people cant do anything about market prices

that is just the politicians being the nimbys

Yea now you can find multi-unit buildings on the same street as single family homes, it’s amazing.

Some economists doubt whether the success is as big as presented, as rents prices go in cycles. While building applications have gone up, electricity connections seem to stay the same, leading to the question whether more homes are actually being released to the market in Auckland. In addition, by only looking at prices, it hides the size of the house being rented/sold. While I think there is some truth to NIMBYism hypothesis, it is also an idea developers like to push, as it allows them to gentrify and increase the value of their land.

@@MRJP The NIMBY issue also routinely contributes to excessive costs, or outright failures, of public transport plans in many places. It's not the only problem, but it's a provably fairly large contributor.

@@laurencefraser No one is argueing NIMBYism is desirable. The point is that the evidence that NIMBYism significantly increase house prices and zoning laws changes improve affordability is not very convincing, while Joeri presents it basically as the strongest contender by presenting it as the general mechanism behind 'construction failure', ignoring the evidence against this theory.

Too bad NACT immediately removed the law labour put in that made the new zoneing rules be even broader in Auckland and apply to other city's. Their new policy allows city's to continue to kick the can down the road and has caused house prices to go up and rent prices to surge in response.

Because urban areas have limited but valuable land. Rural areas are affordable because hardly anyone wants to live there unless they're wealthy and not in need to find a job to support themselves.

Has the ability for some people to work remotely reduced this difference? Taxpayers should want people (who don’t work remotely) to live closer to their work. Otherwise taxpayers will have to pay for more transportation infrastructure (be it additional road lanes or more public transport capacity)

Exactly, $4600 at 5% for 25 years if you have the down payment.

Well said 😊

yeah but there's still apartments and townhousing and other types of homes that aren't a house, which in Australia anyway, are still cheap enough for a single person to buy by their 30s for sure.

Not if the supply is kept low. Why do you think the governments purposely keep lo amount of homes being built

didn't you watch the video, its not a bubble its just "lack of supply"

@@windwaker0rules all supply shocks create a bubble, doesn't matter what market you're in. When the time comes when there is more supply than demand, that's when the bubble pops.

@@DjDmt Well considering our market is used for money laundering the demand is basically infinite. Which is why you can find empty properties to squat in all over the place, i have no idea how this channel got a figure about how many empty properties we have when no one has ever done research on the topic.

@@windwaker0rules the empty properties figures come from the census, done back in 2021. The figure is debatable though because of covid lockdowns, some people were living at other peoples houses etc, but yes, there are a lot being bought by investment firms and foreign investors. When we head into a recession and people start losing their jobs there will be a correction of sorts.

It never became 'law'.

Thats like 101 of propaganda

Had to look it up as a non-native-English-speaker but it was exactly what I was thinking: "Karen (slang) is a term used as slang typically for a middle-class white American woman who is perceived as entitled or excessively demanding."

In the UK last year, 190k new houses were constructed. In the same year net immigration was 720k. That's over 3.75 new people for every new house. In my opinion, this is now the main driver of house price inflation.

I agree. This fierce competition on the housing market in certain regions is leading to increased mortgage lending despite higher interest rates. This makes the instrument of interest rates unable to combat inflation. I think lower rates are out of the question for the foreseeable future. I think if graphs were published about the current money supply, they would be going up again. In such circumstances, another drop in supply would surely lead to another wave of inflation in the way meanstream economists measure it :) But I expect people saying this will be ridiculed by economists. It's transitory, right?

Xenophobe

Good question. Sometimes a single house is torn down and replaced with multiple units or apartments. That might be a net supply increase. Some people live in share houses/apartments. Because of this, supply of rooms matters. If a 2 bedroom home was replaced with a 4 bedroom home, then there would be a supply increase of 2 bedrooms.

Corn is still food even though corn futures exist. I don't see what makes housing any different.

@@shane_rm1025 If you got the entire population to buy corn as their retirement investment because the price was sure to go up, and everyone and anyone buying long corn futures regardless of if they were involved in the use of corn, it wouldn't be food for long,.

@@shane_rm1025 Commodities are generally terrible investments.

YEP! ive seen this in many cities myself, australians are realizing and complaining of this too

Yup I've lived in Orlando and now South Florida. I see a lot of new construction just for them to end up mostly vacant and charging $2500+ a month it's sad

Sitting empty is so wasteful. A waste of the land and the depreciating building on the land. Even an inefficient use of the building materials and labour that made the buildings. A vacancy tax would help.

@@JamielDeAbrew yeah even if there aren't many vacancies say 2% it would do no harm (it costs nothing to do) and people say it's only 1 or 2 % of houses are vacant but when there are hundreds of thousands to millions of houses in a city it adds up to being a large amount eg: if there are 500k houses and 2% are vacant that is 10k homes being vacant

Did this happen around a similar time that remote work increased (ie working from home)? If yes, I wonder if people choose to move further from their workplace to get more rooms at the same price (eg a home office, hobby room, guest room etc…) If so, what happened when this flowed through the market? Did it eventually lead to un under-supply of rooms - eventually pushing up the national average rental price?

amen , this is taking up a huge percent of the market, and in a market of tight margins, 5% allocated to short rentals or vacay homes can kill an area

Why isn't that occupied? Short term housing demand is real too.

@@bandqpine1690 sounds profitable just build more homes

@@lmao4982 because having housing as short term rentals means it is easy to sell as you don't have to deal with renter protection laws, and also over the same period of time a short term rental will cost more as for example people will spend more when going somewhere for an emergency or holiday

@@rupertvass8793 yeah just build more

also vacancies in canada are sub 2% in some areas. almost all cities are below 5%. that's with all the money laundering in the canadian property market

Can you explain why no one wants to work in construction in canada?

@@regieegseg8588 because people thinks it's a bad job or they're told to 'do something better.' people literally make $100,000's running construction businesses and even as an employee the pay is really good. When I was in University people thought it was funny I worked in construction and a lot of them asked me why i didnt get a 'better job' when all of them were stepping on each others throats to get $17 an hour jobs(graduated com sci). Everyone thinks it's a lot worse than it is and no one wants to join

@@regieegseg8588 Scary power tools. Mean bosses. Can't spend half the day playing with your phone.

@@robgrey6183 interesting. may be pay is shit?