Real estate speculation: Papy Boomers responsible?

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Real estate speculation: Papy Boomers responsible?




by Christophe » 18/07/09, 12:29

I have recently made this reflection: is not the spectacular speculative rise in property prices in certain large French cities since the beginning of the year 2000, in large part, due to the irresponsible behavior of the boomers? ?

Indeed it was at this time (1995 to 2005) that most of them had finished paying their mortgage (20 to 30 years) and started to think about their retirement (horizon: 5 to 10 years) or to retire . They therefore no longer necessarily needed to be close to big cities.

Thus, thinking only of their purchasing power, the prices demanded for sale have exploded ... and the generations that follow only have to foot the bill.

But it's true that they are the ones who rebuilt France, so they deserve it ... we, the young people, are just wankers anyway and if we can't find a job it's our fault ...

Voila it was the rage of Saturday noon!
0 x
User avatar
elephant
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6646
Registration: 28/07/06, 21:25
Location: Charleroi, center of the world ....
x 7




by elephant » 18/07/09, 12:41

In Belgium, prices were multiplied by 3 while wages increased by 1,85 between 1986 and 2006.

In fact the real culprits are the real estate agents who realized that they were not earning enough and who took advantage of low financial interest rates, which made the first increases "painless" in the monthly repayment level.
0 x
elephant Supreme Honorary éconologue PCQ ..... I'm too cautious, not rich enough and too lazy to really save the CO2! http://www.caroloo.be
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 18/07/09, 12:53

By 3 in how long? Over what period?

A) For prices: during the last 10-15 years (but especially since 2000),real estate speculation has paid much more than work.

Someone who bought a property at the end of the 1990s, there is a good chance that this has brought him (in case of resale) much more than the savings ... on his salary ...

The inheritance costs, calculated on the "speculative" value are also more and more enormous ... so that some do not even manage to pay them without reselling the property ... Crazy right?

B) It is certain that the responsibility is shared: but real estate agents have always wanted to earn more, so pkoi the phenomenon coincides with the start of pensions for baby boomers?

In the same genre we can also, it's the fault:
- buyers, who buy too much and push (or at least maintain) prices up,
- to bankers who grant loans too easily ...
0 x
Christine
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1144
Registration: 09/08/04, 22:53
Location: In Belgium, once
x 1




by Christine » 18/07/09, 13:01

Christophe wrote:The inheritance costs, calculated on the "speculative" value are also more and more enormous ...


No, they have largely been revised downwards. Remember, it was Sarko's gift to the "little people" in exchange for the tax shield for the better-off.

For the papy-boomers, I find you very nice because it is often a second or third property that they sell to young people who will spend their whole lives making ends meet.

Only it should not be said, because we are not only wankers, we are also ungrateful ...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 18/07/09, 13:06

Christine wrote:No, they have largely been revised downwards. Remember, it was Sarko's gift to the "little people" in exchange for the tax shield for the better-off.


Uh, I don't know the whole thing at all: does this drop only compensate for speculation? In other words: is the level of fees in absolute terms the same as before the boom? I doubt...

For example: lowering costs by 30% (* 0.7) but increasing by 300% (* 3) it still increases by 0.7 * 3 = 210% ...

It's always nice to be taken for an idiot ...

Christine wrote:For the papy-boomers, I find you very nice because it is often a second or third property that they sell to young people who will spend their whole lives making ends meet.


It is not false!

Christine wrote:Only it should not be said, because we are not only wankers, we are also ungrateful ...


Houu .... what are we mean ...
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 150 guests