429
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] krellor@kbin.social 60 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So your comment made me go "lol, imagine buying a house in Russia." Meaning my preconceptions were that most in Russia didn't have the means to own a home.

But then I'm like, I don't actually know that, let's check it out.

According to this site home ownership in Russia is over 90%. So what you outlined is a real problem for people there, and changes some of my mental picture of Russian life.

The more you know!

[-] Skua@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

I suppose 30 years of mostly declining population has probably significantly reduced the pressure on the housing supply

[-] uis@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I still have question how even stagnated population would even pressure housing supply at all.

[-] Mkengine@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago

I was wondering the same thing for Germany, our population is stagnating, but apparently we need 400,000 new apartments per year (according to our government). Maybe because there are more divorces and singles nowadays who want to live alone?

[-] Skua@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Germany's population has actually increased by almost four million in the past ten years, so that number of new apartments seems pretty reasonable at the moment. There will always be some homes that need replaced each year too, if they become unsuitable for living or are converted to non-residential purposes

[-] Mkengine@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

You are right, maybe the y-axis of the diagram I remember was scaled for a larger range and it looked like it was stagnating, but with those numbers it really seems reasonable.

[-] Skua@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

The numbers for Germany do often look weird after reuinification. In 2011 Germany realised it actually had 1.5 million fewer people than it thought it did. It hadn't actually done a full census since reunification, and over 24 years in the west and 30 years in the east plus the difficulty of combining the two sets of records, errors built up

Yep. If more people were shaking up together. It would reduce the pressure on housing. Though I would suspect that people owning multiple houses might also have an impact on this number.

[-] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

It's complicated by the fact a lot of flats were privatized after the fall of USSR. It's like a boomer situation in the US. Many still live in what their parents claimed.

[-] netwren@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

90% sounds really high? At least compared to the states where it seems a vast majority is renting??

No idea the data on this, just going off my anecdotal experience.

[-] Aux@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Everything was owned by the state during Soviet times. Then the people got the chance to privatise their homes for pennies. Now everyone is an owner. That happened to all countries which were a part of USSR, not just Russia. Renting is a very weird concept over there. You only rent if: you travel a lot for work, you're a poor student in a different city and your uni didn't provide accommodation, or you're an alcoholic who lost their home.

Source: born and raised in USSR.

90% own houses, but evidently a much lower percentage also own a washing machine, judging from the souvenirs the conscripts have been bringing home

[-] Ildar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

🤦🏻‍♂️

[-] krellor@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

I was surprised as well. It would be worth confirming the dates from a second source, but there are some ready possible explanations for it as well. It could show a large number of multigenerational households. It could relate to the distribution of the population in high and low cost areas (rural vs urban likely). So it does seem high, but not impossible.

Cheers!

[-] ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com 11 points 1 year ago

Another large factor is that it was communism up until relatively recently. Meaning wealth was largely evenly distributed outside the very top of the party. Not that people were well off, but far more equal than we are in the west. And while the oligarchs have an extremely outsized percentage of all Russian wealth buying real estate would make little sense in Russia, that would 1) put their position in Russia in danger by painting a target on them 2) a horrible hedge given Russia isn't the most stable economy. In total I think 90% sounds extremely reasonable. Though the average house standard is of course far lower than say Germany.

[-] krellor@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

That seems reasonable. I also think it stems from my idea of ownership being a standalone house, and didn't include things like owned apartments, flats, condos, etc that would make up a large state of ownership in big cities.

[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

Hold on, 90%? I guess that would include the whole family in the home as the home owners, because otherwise that is an insane amount of single occupant dwellings.

[-] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This number aligns with my personal experience

[-] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If home ownership is 90% that doesn’t sound like a big problem for the country. If only 10% are renting or looking I can’t imagine that would have much of an impact on prices with demand being so low. Business investment is a problem for sure

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

People have children and need to get a bigger place. Or their children grow up and move out, so they downsize.

Higher interest rates keep people in places that don't fit them because it's more expensive to change.

[-] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I have no clue but that’s only true for a growing population. Last time I checked they have a diminishing population with not that much immigration. So if every time someone dies they leave the house to their child - no money required. Again all assumptions

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Uh ok. Yeah that will work... in thirty years. Most people don't have someone dying and leaving them a house every few years.

[-] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s net housing, plenty of young people going off to die won’t be needing a house, lots of empty houses from people leaving the country through brain drain. Lots of people dying well before their kids grow up requiring a house. Yes some young people will need homes but there’s more than enough supply to keep the price low enough that the interest rate doesn’t bite as hard as interest on a large principle plus this impacts less than 10% of the population then assume many of the 10% is happy to rent so I don’t know ~ 5% of the population might want to buy a house and some of this 5% would have the means to do so even with higher rates so it’s even less again

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

You don't understand. With high interest rates, no one wants to move because their home mortgage will be higher even on a smaller place.

[-] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You don’t understand. If you own your home why do you need to move? And if you do need to downsize how will higher rates increase the burden if the principle is decreasing? Do you have a degree in macro economics? Because I dont

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I just explained it to you:

People have children and need to get a bigger place. Or their children grow up and move out, so they downsize.

Yes, higher rates will increase your payment even if the principal is lower.

A $300K 30 year mortgage (paying 20% down) at 3.25% costs $1044 per month. The same mortgage at 6.25% costs $1477 per month. 15% is $3034 per month. At 15% you can afford half as much house as at 6.25%, and a third as much as 3.25%

https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/mortgage-calculator/

Also, you will get less equity for your house when you sell because other people can't afford a larger loan (because their payments go up too). That's the purpose of high interest rates; they prevent people from borrowing money.

this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
429 points (98.4% liked)

World News

39004 readers
421 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS