From my sister-in-law:
Why isn’t there more opportunity for poor people to own their homes?
If you were to substitute the word “horses” for “homes”, the question would answer itself, wouldn’t it? Poor people rent rather than own because their income is too low, their credit scores are too low, or their debt-to-income ratios are too high. That much is not rocket science, and it would apply to any other expensive financed possession we might name.
People very enamored of coercive charity can imagine circumstances in which financially unqualified people are given homes — or are given heavy subsidies toward buying homes. But this can only happen by taking wealth away from other people — people who have earned that wealth and deserve every penny of it. Poor people might get more home than they have earned, but only because other people are getting less home than they deserve. This kind of redistribution of purported injustice is made possible only by force — and, by my reckoning, that force is the most vicious injustice of all.
But, even so, there are two persistent problems. First, people tend not to respect what they did not have to earn and deserve. This is nicely illustrated by the awful condition of free or subsidized housing all over the Earth.
Moreover, unless the problem is to repeat itself, the poor recipients of subsidized housing would have to be forbidden from selling it at its true appreciated value — lest it become unobtainable by other poor people in the future.
The poor do not buy homes because for whatever reason they don’t develop the attributes of mind, character and behavior that lead to homeownership. And, even if they were to be given free or heavily-subsidized homes, the restrictions that would have to be placed on the sale of those homes would prevent those poor people from profitably developing those same attributes of mind, character and behavior even after they have become homeowners — in name only…
Technorati Tags: sellsius 101, real estate, real estate marketing
Andrew Breese says:
Three cheers for sociologic!
Great fun to check in on you every few hours today 😉
September 26, 2006 — 3:00 pm
jf.sellsius says:
People should check other non-conventional housing options. There are housing cubes, tumbleweed houses, modulars, mobiles.
September 26, 2006 — 5:08 pm
Andrew Breese says:
Also inspirational to check in on this utter madness…I’ve today accomplished at least 2 “big” things I’ve been putting off, and together they’re still about 30 times less than your task here!!
September 26, 2006 — 5:12 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Three cheers for sociologic!
Punk. Here’s my question: Why don’t extremely prosperous practical statisticians own their own homes?
> I’ve today accomplished at least 2 “big” things I’ve been putting off, and together they’re still about 30 times less than your task here!!
This you’ll have to explain.
September 30, 2006 — 3:13 pm
Minimum Wagec says:
I am a near-poor college graduate, I work full time, don’t have kids, a cruminal record, or tattoos. I think my “attributes of mind, character and behavior” are up to middle class standards. For example, I was on the board of my neighborhood association for two years.
If the poor can pay the carrying costs of their housing – they do now, as their landlords are making money renting to them – why can’t they own instead of rent?
And how about microhousing options for single childless adults? If you can rent an SRO room, why can’t you own one?
August 30, 2007 — 3:48 am