A Nation of Homeowners or Renters?

Somebody over at Bloomberg named Karl Marx, excuse me, Karl Smith, thinks America should become a nation of renters. Homeownership made sense, he says, when ownership costs were low relative to rent. But now, due to something he calls “financialization,” homeownership is too expensive, and so we should abandon the American dream of high levels of homeownership.

It may be self-serving for them to say so, but realtors are right to say that homeownership is a key to building wealth. Photo by Chris & Karen Highland.

Apparently, due to fast-rising home prices, private investors such as pension funds are buying homes and then renting them out. Homebuilders are even building homes with plans to rent them instead of selling them.

We’ve heard claims like Smith’s before. After the 2008 financial crisis, a spate of opinion pieces came out suggesting that maybe Americans weren’t smart enough or wealthy enough for most of us to own our own homes. Never mind the fact that housing used to be so affordable that low-income urbanites actually had higher homeownership rates than middle-income urbanites. Never mind the fact that relatively low-income countries such as Brazil and Mexico have significantly higher homeownership rates than the United States.

If Smith thinks that private investors buying homes is making housing expensive, he is naive. The real reason for the high cost of housing in many parts of the country, as Antiplanner readers know well, is that a number of state and local governments have used growth-management policies to make single-family housing expensive in order to force more people to live in multi-family dwellings based on the fallacious notion that the latter is more “sustainable.” Since roughly 85 percent of single-family homes are owned by their occupants while roughly 85 percent of multi-family dwellings are rented, this policy has favored renters over owners.
Certain physical and psychological causes tadalafil professional are responsible for developing ED in men, but not always. Kamagra sildenafil, as the very name indicates, is a sildenafil citrate medicine just like that store viagra no prescription. I am an extreme (some might argue dangerous) decentralist. davidfraymusic.com levitra prices And this one will lead to countless doctor visits, medications, ER admissions, consultations of specheap levitra pills ts, and endoscopic surgeries.
Of course, policies that make housing expensive to own also make it expensive to rent. But it’s a lot harder to make a down payment on a home when prices are higher. Federal regulations also discourage lenders from asking people to pay more than 30 percent of their incomes in their mortgages, while no such limits apply to renters. Thus, higher housing prices make it harder to own even if renting is expensive as well. Artificial housing shortages also make prices more volatile, which makes homeownership a riskier investment as well.

I suspect people like Smith imagine that the choice is between buying a 2,000-square-foot single-family home or renting that home. But that’s not the real choice. Instead, the real choice is between a five-bedroom, three-bath, 2,600-square-foot house on a third of an acre lot vs. a one-bedroom, one-bath, 575-square-foot apartment. The monthly mortgage payment on a fifteen-year loan plus the HOA fee on the house roughly equals the monthly rent on the apartment. The house is in San Antonio, which doesn’t practice growth management; the apartment is in San Jose, which does.

Even if renting provided the same home as buying, homeownership has value. Smith claims that it is an illiquid asset, but homeowners can borrow against the equity in their homes while renting means building up someone else’s equity rather than your own. During a period when inflation may become important, homeownership is one of the few inflation-proof investments moderate-income people can make.

Most small businesses get at least some of their initial financing from the equity in the business owners’ homes, so reducing homeownership rates contributes to lower rates of small-business formation. In addition, after adjusting for the incomes and educational attainments of the parents, children of moderate to low-income families do better in school if their families own their own homes than if they rent.

People like Smith who try to justify lower homeownership rates are merely enabling government meddling in housing markets. Such meddling should stop and in particular should stop attempting to favor multi-family housing over single-family homes.

Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

8 Responses to A Nation of Homeowners or Renters?

  1. prk166 says:

    There’s a value to renting + leasing. For example, if you take a new job and move to that city, some people would prefer to rent until they get a feel for if that new job was the right decision. It usually is. But then again, a lot of us have been in that position where 2 months into the new gig, we know it’s not right. Better to jump ship earlier and correct that problem. And breaking a lease is a hell of a lot faster and less expensive the buying and selling a home.

  2. MJ says:

    Of course, policies that make housing expensive to own also make it expensive to rent.

    How did Smith not notice this when writing his commentary piece? This is a remarkably stupid article, even by Bloomberg’s standards.

    “Financialization” of the housing market is not a new phenomenon. The federal government has been involved in this game for decades, using government-sponsored vehicles like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to try to steer the housing market. That ended badly in 2008.

    Institutional or corporate investors are purchasing properties in both the owner-occupied and rental segments of the market. The author himself even admits that many of these houses are being bought in order to be put on the market as rentals. Guess what pushing more people into rental housing will do for rental prices?

    Of course, the risk that the purchasers of these properties are taking on is not just upside risk, but also downside risk. We may have short memories, but do you remember all of the people (and institutional investors) who bought homes during the mid-2000s with the expectation that the price of their property would continue to rise indefinitely? Prices have a way of equilibrating supply and demand in the long run, and that particular adjustment was rather sudden and jolting.

  3. prk166 says:


    Guess what pushing more people into rental housing will do for rental prices?
    ” ~MJ

    So true, so true.

    It’s almost like in order for prices to be able to go down you need to :

    a) lower the cost of building
    b) address the supply, not play the demand type shell game

  4. LazyReader says:

    When situation that affects an industry is caused by people tampering with the very market they promoted.

    That’s like hiring a body guard and paying him to beat you up

    • metrosucks says:

      Saying Karl “Marx” is not at all inappropriate. After all, the same ethnic comrades are at work, feverishly creating a situation to destroy the last wealth of the white middle class.

  5. greenVan says:

    Maybe the market is anticipating rampant inflation due to unrestrained creation of currency. Anything real – houses, bullion, commodities, is all inflation protected more or less.

  6. Ted says:

    “Maybe the market is anticipating rampant inflation due to unrestrained creation of currency. Anything real – houses, bullion, commodities, is all inflation protected more or less.”

    Indeed. The Antiplanner refuses to admit that monetary inflation (and ultra-low interest rates) are significant factors in housing prices.

    Houses, after all, are just durable consumer goods. When you factor in upkeep, interest, property taxes, inflation, etc., they are an expense, not an investment.

  7. ARThomas says:

    This is a real issue that is compounded by restrictive land use practices. I suspect that many of the investors who engage in this type of business also push for certain types of land use restrictions to hedge the market since they have the capital to play. A good read on how this developed is: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250241801

    Also, even some liberal commentators are skeptical of this and see the value in people building equity.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mThWJFGy9-I
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBb9zf_zWvU

    Ultimately policy should incentivize dispersed ownership since it seems to create the most stability in society.

Leave a Reply