Letters to the Editor
-
Do you know what "rootless cosmopolitanism" means?
It was a Stalinist euphemism used to attack Jews.
-
Great...
Just what this country needs- a plethora of rootless wage-slaves.
That should turn the economy around alright! Right back to the 19th Century when robber barons were, well, robbers; you know, The Good Old Days, when consumers were unprotected, when unions were nonexistent, graft was accepted with a nod and a wink and the public be damned!
Hmm. Come to think of it, we're practically there already.
-
A case against tax breaks, maybe
Interesting article that brings new issues to the rent vs buy debate. But really, as a case against home ownership, it's a little weak. Owning a home is for many people about stability, comfort and investment. You never have to face a rent increase when you own. You never have to move because your landlord sold out from under you. And you can maintain your own place to a standard that renters can only dream about. It doesn't make you immobile, as houses can be sold should the need arise.
However, tax breaks for homeowners have always been very regressive. They punishes poor people who can't afford to buy (or encourages them to take out ill-advised loans so they too can enjoy the tax benefits). It's also unnecessary...I live in Canada where the only tax benefit to owning your own home is that the capital gains on one residence are exempt...something that only matters when you sell. The mortgage is still entirely paid with after-tax money. Yet owning is still a very attractive option. This theory about labour mobility and economic efficiency just adds one more argument against the government actively encouraging ownership.
-
Facinating
This way, for everyone who can't afford to buy a house (a growing number, especially in the Northeast where housing prices are still outrageous even after YEARS of declining home prices) can be kept by corporations running after every little scrap and crumb they decide to throw us, or which happens to fall from their great big mouths.
Well, I have had to realize that home ownership will not be in the cards for me (especially after my husband's serious health problems have put us into serious debt, and we're insured!) but it is fascinating to me how the powers that be can change on a dime when it suits them. A few years ago, when housing prices were on fire, and people were flipping houses trying to turn a home into a bundle of money, we were told be better get one of those sub-prime adjustable rate mortgages with no money down so we can get into a house and start building wealth. We sure needed to do that, when they needed someone to buy their houses, that was the line. Remember the "ownership society" and even Salon ran an article about how you should buy a house even if you can't afford it because the worst that can happen is "the bank will take the house back."
Now that housing prices are so ridiculously high only the well off can afford them, we are told, not to worry, it is better for us to be at the mercy of employers and landlords.
Come on people can we stop looking at real estate as an investment and look at it as it should be looked at, as piece of the earth we are responsible for (do not own, how can you own your mother - earth?) to nurture and enjoy as it nurtures and enjoys us until we pass.
Sorry, I was just dreaming of a better world again.
-
Baby, it's cold outside.
It's cold outside, but we've got the heat turned on in our house -- the house I'm glad we own. I think of my friend back in her rental apartment in the building where we used to rent, and worry about her. You see, her landlord turns on the heat when he decides it's right, regardless of how cold it is for the residents. That's just one of the many drawbacks of being a renter and not an owner.
If I want to see the world, I'll hope in my car or get on a train or a plane. I'm grateful that in all cases, I'll have my own house to return to.
-
A few comments...
As someone who grew up in what might be considered a twisted version of this "rootless" paradigm... I can tell you that all I've ever wanted in my life is a sense of staying still, of having a home base, of getting somewhere and then not having to worry about leaving. By the time I was 6 years old my family had lived in 6 places, courtesy of the military. I had no friends to speak of and summer, for me, was just the time we packed up to move again.
So I don't care what the Economist thinks about moving around. I can tell you from experience that it sucks. Both my parents thought it sucked, too, and my dad was glad to retire the military so we could "put down roots" in a good community. Now both my parents are land-owners and productive members of society. Some people work in jobs where it is more beneficial to stay somewhere for a long time... my mom is an attorney and my dad is a contractor, and both of those professions depend on experience and reputation within your community. And yeah, we own a home and a cabin. And we own them both outright. My dad owns 100 acres in North Dakota too. Clearly the failing economy is our fault.
-
Wow...
Where to start on this one:
Are they trying to make the case that only the wealthy should own property? Are they assuming that houses can't be resold. Are they assuming that renters don't put down roots? And besides... isn't telling people how they should spend their money anathema to free market capitalism?
-
Silenced
No, it is not. Stalin may have also used the expression, but it comes from Czarist Russia in the 1850s.
-
Another note on labour mobility
Even without selling, homeowners can be quite mobile. Many of the people who work in my industry live and own homes in Newfoundland (average house price: $137k), but work in Fort McMurray, Alberta (average house price: $663k) - a 2500 mile commute. Efficiency, I'm not so sure about, but it does work, and the companies that foot the bill are still turning enormous profits. The argument could even be made that it's helping to keep the gap between rich and middle class in check.