[medellin]

It could be considered risk taking. But there is a line between risk taking and stupidity. And true without more context it’s hard to decide here.

However risk taking on housing has historically turned out bad for individuals and the economy

[civilitty]

> However risk taking on housing has historically turned out bad for individuals and the economy

What are you basing that on? The GFC may be the most recent major crisis but home ownership is the American dream post-WWII.

[mikem170]

The American Dream ain't what it used to be...

Post-WWII a guy without a high school education was able to get a job at the steel plant, buy a house, raise a family, buy a rental in Florida, and retire with a pension.

The post-WWII U.S. economy was an anomaly - having half the worlds GDP. So many other industrialized countries were bombed and needed to rebuild. The U.S. was the factory of the world for a couple/few decades. We had security, capital, demographics, and productivity gains all in our favor during that time.

We no longer live in that economy. Members of today's millennial generation struggle to save for housing while paying down student loans. Many are still living with their parents. For those who want to have kinds it is common that both parents need to work. Wages have been stagnant for several decades. The government has subsidized 30 year fixed rate low interest mortgages, and the accumulated asset wealth this realized has benefited older generations, making housing much harder to afford for everyone else, a greater multiple of their incomes. Younger generations don't expect to do better than their parents. Maybe this explains the rise in populism. Is this sustainable? Can housing keep increasing in value? Or do we need to make changes?