People Who Live In Suburbs: Classy, Icky, or Dudes?

imho there should be fewer laws

imho there should be fewer laws for me

i believe in unregulated free market lamps

thanks for nothing oh-BOMB-ah

it's also bad for the economy because it traps people and people who own houses are less likely to start businesses or move to a better job. and it's not a particularly good investment for most people.

this is true in broad strokes, but home ownership subsidies for low income populations in hot markets seems like a win-win

people who own houses are less likely to start businesses

I don't think I agree with this assessment in the least. Two of my friends have started their own businesses in the past couple years and a fair reason why they were able to get loans to do so was having a house to list as an asset and the resultant good credit from their mortgages. I can't say for certain that renting would have definitely stopped them from getting the loans, but it would have been harder for sure.

I do agree with the packing up and moving for jobs part though, so much harder to do when you own.

defeated by anecdata again

I wasn't trying to defeat him on anything, come on. I said that I personally don't really agree with that and offered evidence to back it up. But, I always forget, we aren't allowed to disagree with iatee itt.

I mean, hey, if anyone can bring in stats that definitively prove it one way or the other, great.

Our cross-sectional regressions that only control for individual observable attributes and geographical factors identify a positive link between homeownership and various measures of selfemployment. However, once we use fixed-effects to control for time-invariant unobservables – such as innate entrepreneurial spirit, risk tolerance or persistent wealth – we find that becoming a homeowner significantly reduces the propensity of becoming an entrepreneur. Moreover, we show that this negative link is much stronger and more precisely estimated when focussing on homeowners with mortgages, and that it looses its significance once we include the mortgage loan-to-value (LTV) ratio as an explanatory variable in our regressions. This implies that leverage considerations may exacerbate portfolio distortions due to undiversified risk of investment in housing, and may sharpen the trade-off between becoming a homeowner and starting a business.

/it's also bad for the economy because it traps people and people who own houses are less likely to start businesses or move to a better job. and it's not a particularly good investment for most people./

this is true in broad strokes, but home ownership subsidies for low income populations in hot markets seems like a win-win
--akadarbarijava (psychgawsple)

trying to figure out if this is a joke

xp So that took...about 5 seconds to do.

But, I always forget, we aren't allowed to disagree with iatee itt.

wait who made up that rule

i can't help but think of all the food cart owners in pdx who rent housing and how neither being an entrepreneur nor renting a home is really doing them any economic favors

the zoning board xp

entrepreneurship is def way overrated and is often just of people who just dont have any other options

Thanks for that psychgawspie, I was googling but hadn't come up with anything definitive yet. Source?

And Laural, I get that you hate me for whatver reason, you don't need to pile on me again and again to prove it anymore. Ok?

I mean, obviously psychgawsple knew where to find that, its not exactly something three seconds of googling would lead you immediately to.

it's also bad for the economy because it traps people and people who own houses are less likely to start businesses or move to a better job. and it's not a particularly good investment for most people.

― iatee, Tuesday, July 10, 2012 5:26 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

First of all, the vast majority of small businesses fail completely with a couple years, so putting "it prevents people from starting businesses" in the same paragraph with "it's not a good investment for most people" is plain lulsy. Yes, in normal times, home price appreciation isn't that impressive beyond inflation, but it's also a lot less risky in normal times than other investments, and it's a kind of forced savings. Plus you are GETTING something for that money beyond "investment" i.e. a place to live where your costs of living are relatively fixed compared to renting, and where you have a stake in your community on account of owning there.

FWIW I don't believe that having everyone move whereever for the best job they can possibly get all the time is an optimal outcome. That's exactly the kind of free market argument I think is bunk.

I mean starting a business is a TERRIBLE investment and also just not something most people should do regardless.

xps it's not a joke! i think it's more about choice than either of the two options being better, and if you wanna sit it out and make money when your neighborhood is increasing in value then by all means

and i found that in the article linked to upthread by iatee http://www.spatialeconomics.ac.uk/textonly/SERC/publications/download/sercdp0103.pdf

if more ppl could work from home, the moving issue would be moot

Thanks!

(xpost)

I def support home ownership if that means we can all do our work from our workstations in second life

I'm not saying I've read that whole 45-page study but it appears to be about homeownership and entrepreneurship in the UK, not exactly what people are talking about in this thread, right?

lol, the author of this (admittedly not very well-thought out or academically sound) book about artisan entrepreneurship spoke to one of my classes recently and was SUPER disillusioned for some reason and more or less kept saying "this might be your only option in the future, we're sort of all fucked unless you have a bulletproof one hundred percent amazing invention or insane business savvy, get used to it"

xps it's not a joke! i think it's more about choice than either of the two options being better, and if you wanna sit it out and make money when your neighborhood is increasing in value then by all means

yes. what could go wrong.

Sorry, jon, it's just...you never learn not to try to rebut people with your personal feelings/anecdotes from your life? But then I really don't understand why anyone wants to pick fights with iatee, chinavis, or a couple of other people on this topic, except to shit-stir on bad days. Whether you like them or not, whether you like the conclusions or not, as far as I've been able to tell they have been repeatedly proven right w studies, stats, etc. Plus they're knowledgeable on this specific topic, unlike the posters who repeatedly disagree with them based on feelings or personal bias or w/e. That swipe I made could have been applied to any of them tbh.

xp so it's ok for them to be forced to leave? they shouldn't have options? i guess i have no idea what you're saying here... the best way to combat gentrification is for everyone to rent?

I wasn't trying to take swipes at iatee, I genuinely disagreed with one of his points based on my personal experience so I tossed it out there. I wasn't out to prove him wrong though, and someone was able to steer me right wrt what I thought. I think it can sometimes be helpful to incorporate some real life eveidence though, lest the argument be nothing more than waving papers in each others faces for post after post.

(xpost)

papers are collections of real life evidence that tend to be more comprehensive that what we can gather in our personal lives

haven't read the revive at all here but consider this your obligatory "iatee you're wrong" post

Just because a block quote is from a scholarly publication doesn't mean it settles the question though.

I don't really have an opinion on this and I'm willing to believe psychgospel is more knowledgeable than me, but I glanced at that LSE study long enough to see it was about the UK specifically, would their conclusions transfer to the US necessarily?

I wasn't saying they should replace research or anything, I just think its okay to bring it down from a macro level now and then.

lol iatee is the most facist about this stuff and I approve of anyone addressing his crusade, though

i mean, i think it's somewhat problematic to have 'innate entrepreneurial spirit' included as a variable in any regression analysis but admittedly didn't read about their methods very much

Not questioning their methods at all, I'm in no position to as it's not my field. But there are all differences in the UK and US housing markets that would make their conclusions difficult to transfer across the pond, right?

idk, it sounds like you're 20-25% less likely to be an 'entrepreneur' if you buy a home but it's mostly linked to the first couple years of home ownership and, I would bet, correlated to market

also highly skeptical of the fact that said articles all refer to home ownership as an "investment" when it is probably a mostly emotional choice rather than a logical one in the current market

And by market, I mean that my house cost < $150k and it's a common practice to negotiate that the seller pay closing costs around here? That kind of kills the "omg all your money is gone" argument. Big time sink and maintenance is costly, though.

But there are all differences in the UK and US housing markets that would make their conclusions difficult to transfer across the pond, right?

yes, very different. not saying this invalidates the findings, but it'd be interesting to look at the states too

xp so it's ok for them to be forced to leave? they shouldn't have options? i guess i have no idea what you're saying here... the best way to combat gentrification is for everyone to rent?

― akadarbarijava (psychgawsple), Tuesday, July 10, 2012 4:52 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well go find the gentrification thread because 'fighting gentrification' is another issue / not relevant to 95% of the owners and renters in america

FWIW I don't believe that having everyone move whereever for the best job they can possibly get all the time is an optimal outcome. That's exactly the kind of free market argument I think is bunk.

― click here if you want to load them all (Hurting 2), Tuesday, July 10, 2012 4:42 PM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it's not a 'free market argument' anymore than 'we should make life better for poor people' is a 'free market argument'. the types of people who are most economically trapped by home ownership are generally not rich people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate

as a whole there's no reason to believe that having a society w/ an extremely high homeownership rate is:
a. good for the economy
b. something 'natural' for a developed country
c. something that's good for poor people

In a properly functioning housing (ownership) market there really shouldn't be a widespread phenomenon of "trapped by home ownership."

no, buying and selling a house has extremely high transaction costs, even in a properly functioning housing market

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate

as a whole there's no reason to believe that having a society w/ an extremely high homeownership rate is:
a. good for the economy
b. something 'natural' for a developed country
c. something that's good for poor people

― iatee, Tuesday, July 10, 2012 6:25 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol, do I even have to explain the myriad reasons why your link does absolutely nothing to bolster your argument?

wow bulgaria

who knew

the link doesn't have anything to do w/ c. but there's pretty clearly no correlation between 'rich country' and 'high ownership rate', if anything there's a fairly strong correlation going the other direction.

But I haven't made any arguments that home ownership is good for per capita GDP that has nothing to do with my point whatsoever.

Although, for what it's worth, no, there is not a strong correlation in the other direction based on that list.