• thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Having experienced this kind of policy in Australia; it’s great in theory - but the issue is that builders/sellers just ended up jacking up the prices of their homes to absorb the grant.

    • tehmics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Watched the same thing happen on a smaller scale back when analog TV broadcasting was phased out and we got vouchers for digital TV tuners in America. They all cost around $25 or less. As soon as the vouchers were given out, the prices doubled to $50

      Surely this is a well studied phenomenon with a name, right?

        • tehmics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          No. Inflation is a general increase in price/decrease in buying power per dollar. This is specifically about one class of item increasing in cost to absorb a government subsidy, especially when that subsidy was meant to alleviate a cost to the citizen.

  • Skates@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    This is a band-aid that does nothing to fix the problem. This kind of “solution” was implemented in my country as well. The direct result was an increase in housing prices across the board.

    The problem isn’t that people are lacking the money for a downpayment. The problem is that volatility in the job market combined with ever increasing prices means you can’t commit to buy a place of your own and pay it for the next 30 years, because the first time you lose your job you’ll have lost all progress towards owning your home.

    The fix you want is government-built housing. Make a neighborhood with government money. Sell the apartment for 1/3 of the price if the buyer is a teacher/fireman/doctor/other high-demand jobs in governmental employ. That way you fill the positions, the housing prices stop going up, and young people get to securely purchase a house before they’re 50.

    But of course, that’s not the end-goal, is it? No the objective is to make more money for those who already own all the land and houses. And there’s no need to spend time thinking about it, just make some fucking vouchers. We all know who’ll end up cashing them in.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      This is a band-aid that does nothing to fix the problem. This kind of “solution” was implemented in my country as well. The direct result was an increase in housing prices across the board.

      Does this not apply to student loan repayment as well?

  • nadram@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    That’s a terrible idea. The real life effect is that prices will simply go up. You need to force down real estate prices in general, and offer very low interest rates for first time buyers.

    • Crow_Thief@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      At worst, youre partially right. Maybe they’d go up 10K, but certainly not 25K. That’s just not how markets work. It’s the same argument as saying UBI will increase prices - yes, it will, but not by more than or as much as the UBI is. If everybody else sells their home at $25K more, you can sell yours in a month by going down to $15K more than before.

      • nadram@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I agree, and i didn’t say it will increase prices by 25k. Still think this can be tackled in better ways. Low interest rates over a 20-25 year loan can save you much more than 25k. Edit: let’s ban corporate from buying up blocks of residential areas. It won’t cost you any tax money and will immediately drop the prices

        • Crow_Thief@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          29 days ago

          Yeah, that’s the real solution. We have to ban any one entity owning more than 2-3 residential properties. The $25K is simply a decent stop gap until we can actually make that law happen, because our capitalist overlords would never allow it.

  • mysticpickle@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    This is a band aid size solution on the gaping wound problem of housing shortage. She should really be putting her time into coming up with an answer to increasing housing supply

    • FatCrab@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Increasing housing supply is explicitly part of her announced plan. Are you under the impression that this was the entirety of her announced economic plan?

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Are you under the impression that this was the entirety of her announced economic plan?

        Welcome to the internet.