|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 14 2017 21:00 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 19:50 Incognoto wrote:
France is far away from having labor laws like they have in the USA where you can be fired on the whim of your employer. Undermining worker rights does nothing to fix our economical problems. It's rather the opposite, it undermines the competition to implement new technologies since human labor becomes cheaper, it undermines demand leading to even less growth in the longrun.
Except that, by and large, job security is ALWAYS a thing you pay for. You will always make a lower rate if you are harder to fire because the employer necessarily gets stuck with duds and the productive workers are left with less money because some has to pay the laggards. There's a reason why people with high job security (teachers, civil servants, cops) make comparatively less money than do people with low job security (bankers, consultants).
There's also the fact that countries with cumbersome labor laws and the resulting inflexible markets (e.g. India, France) tend to have employment issues and countries without such laws tend to have fairly low unemployment. It's not a race to the bottom a la tax havens... it's just that the more cumbersome a labor code, the more expensive it is to hire and retain workers, which means people do it less.
|
On September 15 2017 01:34 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 21:00 Big J wrote:On September 14 2017 19:50 Incognoto wrote:
France is far away from having labor laws like they have in the USA where you can be fired on the whim of your employer. Undermining worker rights does nothing to fix our economical problems. It's rather the opposite, it undermines the competition to implement new technologies since human labor becomes cheaper, it undermines demand leading to even less growth in the longrun. Except that, by and large, job security is ALWAYS a thing you pay for. You will always make a lower rate if you are harder to fire because the employer necessarily gets stuck with duds and the productive workers are left with less money because some has to pay the laggards. There's a reason why people with high job security (teachers, civil servants, cops) make comparatively less money than do people with low job security (bankers, consultants). There's also the fact that countries with cumbersome labor laws and the resulting inflexible markets (e.g. India, France) tend to have employment issues and countries without such laws tend to have fairly low unemployment. It's not a race to the bottom a la tax havens... it's just that the more cumbersome a labor code, the more expensive it is to hire and retain workers, which means people do it less.
The US is close to full employment, but our wages have stagnated for almost 30 years. I am not sure full employment is a valuable metric on its own.
|
On September 14 2017 21:00 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 19:50 Incognoto wrote:
France is far away from having labor laws like they have in the USA where you can be fired on the whim of your employer. Undermining worker rights does nothing to fix our economical problems. It's rather the opposite, it undermines the competition to implement new technologies since human labor becomes cheaper, it undermines demand leading to even less growth in the longrun. The only thing it achieves is that you are shifting your unemployment to other countries with higher standards. The real driving forces behind it: inequality, digitalization and globalization are left untouched.
And a rigid labour market does exactly nothing to address digitalisation and globalisation, on the contrary, they are not able to adapt to modern labour markets. Inequality and labour market regulation is not the same thing. There are trivial ways to combat inequality without regulating labour. A sovereign wealth found tapping into capital income streams for example, moving away from home ownership subsidy and getting people to put their money into the economy. (the first method is a way to do this forcefully), paying people to obtain training, more personalised education etc..
A livelong job security and union type organisation achieves the exactly opposite. The 'digital economy' is so diverse that any two people barely have the same interests or are both affected equally by labour policy.
|
I am in no way for US style job "security", but hiring and firing is kinda a basic thing a company should be able to do (with some exceptions).
|
On September 15 2017 02:03 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 21:00 Big J wrote:On September 14 2017 19:50 Incognoto wrote:
France is far away from having labor laws like they have in the USA where you can be fired on the whim of your employer. Undermining worker rights does nothing to fix our economical problems. It's rather the opposite, it undermines the competition to implement new technologies since human labor becomes cheaper, it undermines demand leading to even less growth in the longrun. The only thing it achieves is that you are shifting your unemployment to other countries with higher standards. The real driving forces behind it: inequality, digitalization and globalization are left untouched. And a rigid labour market does exactly nothing to address digitalisation and globalisation, on the contrary, they are not able to adapt to modern labour markets. Inequality and labour market regulation is not the same thing. There are trivial ways to combat inequality without regulating labour. A sovereign wealth found tapping into capital income streams for example, moving away from home ownership subsidy and getting people to put their money into the economy. (the first method is a way to do this forcefully), paying people to obtain training, more personalised education etc.. A livelong job security and union type organisation achieves the exactly opposite. The 'digital economy' is so diverse that any two people barely have the same interests or are both affected equally by labour policy.
what do you mean move away from home ownership subsidy and get people to put their money into the economy? are homes not part of the economy? who will own the homes?
|
One reason for the rising inequality between the super-rich and the middle class is generally that the super-rich hold much of their wealth in stock rather than in real estate. Homes can and do appreciate in price, but usually slowly and putting the equivalent of money into stock would get you a lot more over the course of a few decades.
So instead of encouraging people to buy a home, which especially many Western countries are prone to do, it would make sense to encourage people to put their money into stock. This can be done both privately or publicly. The Japanese gov essentially does this through buying up ETFs on the market and financing their pension system with it. Norway does the same with natural resources and finances welfare through the dividends
Who owns the homes depends on the country or city. In most places a mix of the private and the public sector, like it's already the case. Many schemes exist. People can quasi-buy from a government lease like in Singapore, or rent on the private market, the point is just that pouring all your money into a house and years of down payments has bad social effects. Together with zoning it also creates 'fortresses' for the upper middle class. It's bad for social mobility.
|
It does vary from country to country. For example i think in Poland your ROI is much higher if You buy a flat and rent it rather than buying stocks.
|
On September 15 2017 03:14 Nyxisto wrote:
One reason for the rising inequality between the super-rich and the middle class is generally that the super-rich hold much of their wealth in stock rather than in real estate. Homes can and do appreciate in price, but usually slowly and putting the equivalent of money into stock would get you a lot more over the course of a few decades.
So instead of encouraging people to buy a home, which especially many Western countries are prone to do, it would make sense to encourage people to put their money into stock. This can be done both privately or publicly. The Japanese gov essentially does this through buying up ETFs on the market and financing their pension system with it. Norway does the same with natural resources and finances welfare through the dividends
Who owns the homes depends on the country or city. In most places a mix of the private and the public sector, like it's already the case. Many schemes exist. People can quasi-buy from a government lease like in Singapore, or rent on the private market, the point is just that pouring all your money into a house and years of down payments has bad social effects. Together with zoning it also creates 'fortresses' for the upper middle class. It's bad for social mobility.
so you want people to pay rent to a landlord (lost consumption payment) and invest the difference between mortgage interest/fees and the rent being lost on stocks which are valued at all time highs? down payments on houses in the US are pretty low.
i fail to see what norwegian/alaskan/saudi arabian schemes of paying out natural resource dividends has to do with this at all
|
On September 15 2017 05:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 03:14 Nyxisto wrote:
One reason for the rising inequality between the super-rich and the middle class is generally that the super-rich hold much of their wealth in stock rather than in real estate. Homes can and do appreciate in price, but usually slowly and putting the equivalent of money into stock would get you a lot more over the course of a few decades.
So instead of encouraging people to buy a home, which especially many Western countries are prone to do, it would make sense to encourage people to put their money into stock. This can be done both privately or publicly. The Japanese gov essentially does this through buying up ETFs on the market and financing their pension system with it. Norway does the same with natural resources and finances welfare through the dividends
Who owns the homes depends on the country or city. In most places a mix of the private and the public sector, like it's already the case. Many schemes exist. People can quasi-buy from a government lease like in Singapore, or rent on the private market, the point is just that pouring all your money into a house and years of down payments has bad social effects. Together with zoning it also creates 'fortresses' for the upper middle class. It's bad for social mobility. so you want people to pay rent to a landlord (lost consumption payment) and invest the difference between mortgage interest/fees and the rent being lost on stocks which are valued at all time highs? down payments on houses in the US are pretty low. i fail to see what norwegian/alaskan/saudi arabian schemes of paying out natural resource dividends has to do with this at all
The housing market in the EU compared to the US is very different.
|
Some gay person in Germany is turning to Alternative For Germany which are reportedly anti-gay. He believes they can help him with recent abuse he got from Syrian refugees.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/14/europe/germany-far-right-lgbt-support/index.html
Maybe that guy should be reminded of the following:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
|
On September 15 2017 05:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 03:14 Nyxisto wrote:
One reason for the rising inequality between the super-rich and the middle class is generally that the super-rich hold much of their wealth in stock rather than in real estate. Homes can and do appreciate in price, but usually slowly and putting the equivalent of money into stock would get you a lot more over the course of a few decades.
So instead of encouraging people to buy a home, which especially many Western countries are prone to do, it would make sense to encourage people to put their money into stock. This can be done both privately or publicly. The Japanese gov essentially does this through buying up ETFs on the market and financing their pension system with it. Norway does the same with natural resources and finances welfare through the dividends
Who owns the homes depends on the country or city. In most places a mix of the private and the public sector, like it's already the case. Many schemes exist. People can quasi-buy from a government lease like in Singapore, or rent on the private market, the point is just that pouring all your money into a house and years of down payments has bad social effects. Together with zoning it also creates 'fortresses' for the upper middle class. It's bad for social mobility. so you want people to pay rent to a landlord (lost consumption payment) and invest the difference between mortgage interest/fees and the rent being lost on stocks which are valued at all time highs? down payments on houses in the US are pretty low. i fail to see what norwegian/alaskan/saudi arabian schemes of paying out natural resource dividends has to do with this at all
To argue that stocks are valued at all time highs (implying that this is risky?) after the housing crash in 08 and the the 90s is a little bit funny. It's pretty much universally true that, long term human productivity outpaces a fixed assets like a house or gold or whatever. If you throw your money into blue chips right now the chance that you're better off than doing anything else with it is quite high.
i fail to see what norwegian/alaskan/saudi arabian schemes of paying out natural resource dividends has to do with this at all
The principle behind it is the same. Instead of turning everybody into a mini-landlord in their own castle and micro-managing the labour market, let people profit from economic growth by tapping into the revenue and giving them a share of the growth. Whether that's natural resources or intellectual resources is secondary. There is nothing egalitarian about home ownership, encouraging it is a subsidy for the top two quintiles of the income distribution.
If you look at where the modern economy causes friction, it isn't Hongkong, Switzerland or Denmark, it's Italy, Spain or the American rustbelt.
|
On September 15 2017 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 05:14 IgnE wrote:On September 15 2017 03:14 Nyxisto wrote:
One reason for the rising inequality between the super-rich and the middle class is generally that the super-rich hold much of their wealth in stock rather than in real estate. Homes can and do appreciate in price, but usually slowly and putting the equivalent of money into stock would get you a lot more over the course of a few decades.
So instead of encouraging people to buy a home, which especially many Western countries are prone to do, it would make sense to encourage people to put their money into stock. This can be done both privately or publicly. The Japanese gov essentially does this through buying up ETFs on the market and financing their pension system with it. Norway does the same with natural resources and finances welfare through the dividends
Who owns the homes depends on the country or city. In most places a mix of the private and the public sector, like it's already the case. Many schemes exist. People can quasi-buy from a government lease like in Singapore, or rent on the private market, the point is just that pouring all your money into a house and years of down payments has bad social effects. Together with zoning it also creates 'fortresses' for the upper middle class. It's bad for social mobility. so you want people to pay rent to a landlord (lost consumption payment) and invest the difference between mortgage interest/fees and the rent being lost on stocks which are valued at all time highs? down payments on houses in the US are pretty low. i fail to see what norwegian/alaskan/saudi arabian schemes of paying out natural resource dividends has to do with this at all The housing market in the EU compared to the US is very different.
different how? isn't there less land available for expansion?
|
On September 15 2017 05:39 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 05:14 IgnE wrote:On September 15 2017 03:14 Nyxisto wrote:
One reason for the rising inequality between the super-rich and the middle class is generally that the super-rich hold much of their wealth in stock rather than in real estate. Homes can and do appreciate in price, but usually slowly and putting the equivalent of money into stock would get you a lot more over the course of a few decades.
So instead of encouraging people to buy a home, which especially many Western countries are prone to do, it would make sense to encourage people to put their money into stock. This can be done both privately or publicly. The Japanese gov essentially does this through buying up ETFs on the market and financing their pension system with it. Norway does the same with natural resources and finances welfare through the dividends
Who owns the homes depends on the country or city. In most places a mix of the private and the public sector, like it's already the case. Many schemes exist. People can quasi-buy from a government lease like in Singapore, or rent on the private market, the point is just that pouring all your money into a house and years of down payments has bad social effects. Together with zoning it also creates 'fortresses' for the upper middle class. It's bad for social mobility. so you want people to pay rent to a landlord (lost consumption payment) and invest the difference between mortgage interest/fees and the rent being lost on stocks which are valued at all time highs? down payments on houses in the US are pretty low. i fail to see what norwegian/alaskan/saudi arabian schemes of paying out natural resource dividends has to do with this at all To argue that stocks are valued at all time highs (implying that this is risky?) after the housing crash in 08 and the the 90s is a little bit funny. It's pretty much universally true that, long term human productivity outpaces a fixed assets like a house or gold or whatever. If you throw your money into blue chips right now the chance that you're better off than doing anything else with it is quite high. Show nested quote +
i fail to see what norwegian/alaskan/saudi arabian schemes of paying out natural resource dividends has to do with this at all
The principle behind it is the same. Instead of turning everybody into a mini-landlord in their own castle and micro-managing the labour market, let people profit from economic growth by tapping into the revenue and giving them a share of the growth. Whether that's natural resources or intellectual resources is secondary. There is nothing egalitarian about home ownership, encouraging it is a subsidy for the top two quintiles of the income distribution. If you look at where the modern economy causes friction, it isn't Hongkong, Switzerland or Denmark, it's Italy, Spain or the American rustbelt.
you didnt address my primary question which is one of determining whether the relative advantage of stock appreciation over home prices more than compensates for the cost of rent less mortgage interest. do you have evidence, for example, that the average person paying a rent and investing the remainder in a mutual fund has a higher net wealth gain than someone who paid off a mortgage equivalent (the rent + investment)in the last thirty years?
the principle behind natural resource dividends is nothing like personal investment of wages into stocks instead of homes, and for that matter neither is japan's etf buys distorting the nikkei.
if you are going to go down this share-the-wealth road why not go all-out Meidner Plan?
|
On September 15 2017 05:48 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:On September 15 2017 05:14 IgnE wrote:On September 15 2017 03:14 Nyxisto wrote:
One reason for the rising inequality between the super-rich and the middle class is generally that the super-rich hold much of their wealth in stock rather than in real estate. Homes can and do appreciate in price, but usually slowly and putting the equivalent of money into stock would get you a lot more over the course of a few decades.
So instead of encouraging people to buy a home, which especially many Western countries are prone to do, it would make sense to encourage people to put their money into stock. This can be done both privately or publicly. The Japanese gov essentially does this through buying up ETFs on the market and financing their pension system with it. Norway does the same with natural resources and finances welfare through the dividends
Who owns the homes depends on the country or city. In most places a mix of the private and the public sector, like it's already the case. Many schemes exist. People can quasi-buy from a government lease like in Singapore, or rent on the private market, the point is just that pouring all your money into a house and years of down payments has bad social effects. Together with zoning it also creates 'fortresses' for the upper middle class. It's bad for social mobility. so you want people to pay rent to a landlord (lost consumption payment) and invest the difference between mortgage interest/fees and the rent being lost on stocks which are valued at all time highs? down payments on houses in the US are pretty low. i fail to see what norwegian/alaskan/saudi arabian schemes of paying out natural resource dividends has to do with this at all The housing market in the EU compared to the US is very different. different how? isn't there less land available for expansion?
It depends on how they issue mortgages and encumber the land with said mortgage.
|
On September 15 2017 06:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 05:48 IgnE wrote:On September 15 2017 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:On September 15 2017 05:14 IgnE wrote:On September 15 2017 03:14 Nyxisto wrote:
One reason for the rising inequality between the super-rich and the middle class is generally that the super-rich hold much of their wealth in stock rather than in real estate. Homes can and do appreciate in price, but usually slowly and putting the equivalent of money into stock would get you a lot more over the course of a few decades.
So instead of encouraging people to buy a home, which especially many Western countries are prone to do, it would make sense to encourage people to put their money into stock. This can be done both privately or publicly. The Japanese gov essentially does this through buying up ETFs on the market and financing their pension system with it. Norway does the same with natural resources and finances welfare through the dividends
Who owns the homes depends on the country or city. In most places a mix of the private and the public sector, like it's already the case. Many schemes exist. People can quasi-buy from a government lease like in Singapore, or rent on the private market, the point is just that pouring all your money into a house and years of down payments has bad social effects. Together with zoning it also creates 'fortresses' for the upper middle class. It's bad for social mobility. so you want people to pay rent to a landlord (lost consumption payment) and invest the difference between mortgage interest/fees and the rent being lost on stocks which are valued at all time highs? down payments on houses in the US are pretty low. i fail to see what norwegian/alaskan/saudi arabian schemes of paying out natural resource dividends has to do with this at all The housing market in the EU compared to the US is very different. different how? isn't there less land available for expansion? It depends on how they issue mortgages and encumber the land with said mortgage.
well that's what i'm asking . . . i don't know what the european real estate market is like
|
And yes. Land is comparatively sparse. Friends of mine bought an apartment in Berlin recently.
Very run down. Four and a half rooms, tiny bathroom and a big open plan kitchen for I think about 400k€.
That must be similar to a house with pool and interiors in an American suburb. But maybe that's too divers to simplify as such.
Oh and that's a rather cheap apartment for it's location at the edge of the inner city in a hip District with decent parking and perfect public transport connection.
And at least in Germany people rent. A lot.
|
and do people in germany also have more personal wealth sunk into stocks than americans because they aren't buying houses?
|
On September 15 2017 06:01 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 06:00 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2017 05:48 IgnE wrote:On September 15 2017 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:On September 15 2017 05:14 IgnE wrote:On September 15 2017 03:14 Nyxisto wrote:
One reason for the rising inequality between the super-rich and the middle class is generally that the super-rich hold much of their wealth in stock rather than in real estate. Homes can and do appreciate in price, but usually slowly and putting the equivalent of money into stock would get you a lot more over the course of a few decades.
So instead of encouraging people to buy a home, which especially many Western countries are prone to do, it would make sense to encourage people to put their money into stock. This can be done both privately or publicly. The Japanese gov essentially does this through buying up ETFs on the market and financing their pension system with it. Norway does the same with natural resources and finances welfare through the dividends
Who owns the homes depends on the country or city. In most places a mix of the private and the public sector, like it's already the case. Many schemes exist. People can quasi-buy from a government lease like in Singapore, or rent on the private market, the point is just that pouring all your money into a house and years of down payments has bad social effects. Together with zoning it also creates 'fortresses' for the upper middle class. It's bad for social mobility. so you want people to pay rent to a landlord (lost consumption payment) and invest the difference between mortgage interest/fees and the rent being lost on stocks which are valued at all time highs? down payments on houses in the US are pretty low. i fail to see what norwegian/alaskan/saudi arabian schemes of paying out natural resource dividends has to do with this at all The housing market in the EU compared to the US is very different. different how? isn't there less land available for expansion? It depends on how they issue mortgages and encumber the land with said mortgage. well that's what i'm asking . . . i don't know what the european real estate market is like
It is by nation, so it is going to vary. I know that you can’t discharge a loan in Spain because they have no bankruptcy system, which means their lending is super serious and defaults on loans are super low compared to the US. But I don’t know what do anyplace else. Or if the loans are backed by the government(like some US loans and all(?) loans in Japan)
|
On September 15 2017 06:01 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 06:00 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2017 05:48 IgnE wrote:On September 15 2017 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:On September 15 2017 05:14 IgnE wrote:On September 15 2017 03:14 Nyxisto wrote:
One reason for the rising inequality between the super-rich and the middle class is generally that the super-rich hold much of their wealth in stock rather than in real estate. Homes can and do appreciate in price, but usually slowly and putting the equivalent of money into stock would get you a lot more over the course of a few decades.
So instead of encouraging people to buy a home, which especially many Western countries are prone to do, it would make sense to encourage people to put their money into stock. This can be done both privately or publicly. The Japanese gov essentially does this through buying up ETFs on the market and financing their pension system with it. Norway does the same with natural resources and finances welfare through the dividends
Who owns the homes depends on the country or city. In most places a mix of the private and the public sector, like it's already the case. Many schemes exist. People can quasi-buy from a government lease like in Singapore, or rent on the private market, the point is just that pouring all your money into a house and years of down payments has bad social effects. Together with zoning it also creates 'fortresses' for the upper middle class. It's bad for social mobility. so you want people to pay rent to a landlord (lost consumption payment) and invest the difference between mortgage interest/fees and the rent being lost on stocks which are valued at all time highs? down payments on houses in the US are pretty low. i fail to see what norwegian/alaskan/saudi arabian schemes of paying out natural resource dividends has to do with this at all The housing market in the EU compared to the US is very different. different how? isn't there less land available for expansion? It depends on how they issue mortgages and encumber the land with said mortgage. well that's what i'm asking . . . i don't know what the european real estate market is like
Sorry should have expanded on that. Renting is a lot more common in many parts of the EU. Lots of people go their entire life without actually owning a house.
I find that when EU and US people talk about the housing market their tends to be little overlap in how they perceive it.
|
so then the questions are: are european people investing more money in the stock market? who owns all the housing in europe? who are the landlords? is there increasing separation of landed rentier class and a working middle class who cant afford a down payment and so rent their whole life rather than as a conscious choice about where to invest their money? is there tight rent control in germany? what proportion of german income goes towards rent compared to american income going towards mortgage payments?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
