2 votes

MSM propaganda says that owning a home increases unemployment!

Homeownership is a good thing, for the individual and for society. Or so American governments, whether Republican or Democrat, have long believed. The benefits have been cited repeatedly in justifying the existence and expansion of the tax breaks given to home buyers.

But maybe it isn’t nearly as good as had been thought.

A new study by two economists concludes that rising levels of homeownership in a state “are a precursor to eventual sharp rises in unemployment in that state.” As more homes are owned, in other words, fewer people have jobs.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Home ownership

is only good when people can afford the homes, not when people need 30 or 40 year 2% loans with no downpayment. When these rates rise we are going to see obliteration of this phony economy and these falsely greenlighted homeowners.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

Because they want us all to become 'urbanized'

If you live in a larger city notice how they have taken over the 'bad side of town' and built up all these high rise apartments and office space. It's mostly all empty and the only people who move in them are wealthy yuppie out of towners. It's all part of the 're-gentrification' ICLEE, Smart Growth, Agenda 21 plan.

Meanwhile...small town America is dying.

Lowes/Home Depot

Probably don't like this study. And I would argue that many more jobs would be lost if everyone rented because people would be less likely to buy all of the things that are required/desired within the home improvement industry.

Interesting Information

I have never been sold on the rational that the National Association of Realtors has been using.
In part:
"Homeowners’ children were more likely to do well in school and less likely to drop out. They were more likely to be well behaved. Teenage pregnancy rates were lower, and the children of lower-income homeowners were less likely to wind up on welfare as adults than were children of similar renters."
The beginning of their report
is all about the broad numbers and statistics of home-ownership. These numbers almost never benefit individual humans, and do benefit large corporate interests, who live on broad numbers.

Also, some areas are prefaced by: "As before, it is not clear if homeownership in itself determines more civic participation or if the correlated variable of residential stability is more responsible for higher civic participation."

I suggest that these benefits are related to something else entirely, and the dynamic of rental properties (too large to sum up in a paragraph) plays a large part.

Its all about socialization, and I don't believe that there is any direct correlation between owning a home and being social.

A renter who is well adjusted, renting a place in a nice neighborhood, with social people, paying a reasonable amount, and has disposable income for a family life that is above survival, will have the same benefits that the NAR says of owning a home.

In contrast, a homeowner, paying too high a mortgage, on a house that is "underwater", living in survival only mode, will suffer far more social problems than his renter neighbor.

The tax breaks given to owning a home being cited as a benefit is part of the propaganda. Trying to pay less tax money in order to live a better life seems like a battle between the government and the human, rather than a lifestyle that should be promoted by cheap money to buy houses in order to improve the broad numbers that corporate interests live on. The pump that pushes air into the bubbles.

Just open the box and see


in other news, the national association of snake oil producers think we should buy more snake oil.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

I believe Peter Schiff/Jim

I believe Peter Schiff/Jim Rogers/Marc Faber (one of them) has made a similar argument.

There are some logical

There are some logical arguments in the story. It is much easier to pick up and move in order to get a job if you are just renting. Another point is that homes have gotten a lot larger over the years and house payments are often so large that there is no money left to spend on other stuff. All people's paychecks are going directly to the bankers. This would hurt the local economy.

They want

home debtors, not home owners.

This does make some sense.

This does make some sense. What they say in the article is basically what I think.
Once people buy a house, they want to stay with it for a long time and are more reluctant to leave. Basically, once they lose their job, they narrow their search for anything thats nearby instead of far away. This reduces their chance at finding somewhere to work.

This opens up an interesting question though. Why is it so hard for so many people to keep their jobs for a long period of time?

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.