Hacker News Reader

Comment by leoedin | Hacker News Reader

The point isn't that you can't start a family without owning a home (obviously that's untrue) but that many people won't want to start a family while living in the relative instability of rented accommodation. That's almost certainly true - I definitely had buying a home as a pre-requisite to starting a family (and I don't regret that decision). There's always going to be some babies, but it's the societal level fertility rate that will drop.

All those people for whom home ownership is just about in reach will delay starting a family. Those living in unsecure shared accomodation won't even consider it. It's pretty clear that fertility rates have fallen significantly in all western countries over the past decade.

View on HN

I think this is far more situational. ~20 years ago, the passably well-to-do apartment complex I was living in was (in some sections) absolutely crawling with children. Many of the units had sliding glass doors opening onto nice courtyards, it was a block or two off the main roads in a decent residential neighborhood, and there was a city park half a block away. If your unit fronted on one of those courtyards, you either liked the "all day, every day" noises of kids playing (and shrieking a fair amount), or else you moved.

OTOH, that apartment complex was designed and built ~1965 or so, when having kids was far more the American social norm. And their business model seemed carefully tuned to attracting longer-term renters.

> The point isn't that you can't start a family without owning a home (obviously that's untrue) but that many people won't want to start a family while living in the relative instability of rented accommodation.

The amusing part of it is that small children are the most amenable to moving, it's not until they're a bit older and getting into school that moving becomes a real problem for them.

Fertility rates are low enough that it can't be entirely ascribed to housing.

Most developed countries took a significant hit to fertility rates around 1970-1980 and stayed below replacement rate since then, fluctuating or dropping further down but never recovering well above replacement rate. I can think of a few things happening during those years, but "housing" wouldn't be a global one.

> The amusing part of it is that small children are the most amenable to moving, it's not until they're a bit older and getting into school that moving becomes a real problem for them.

Children are expensive. If you can't currently afford to buy a house and decide to have a child, the chances of you gaining enough wealth to afford one in the 4 to 6 years before your child reaches school age is practically nonexistent.

This means having a child while renting basically pushes your home ownership plans back by probably about a decade.

It seems weird that “preparation for a child” means owning your own home.

I never would have had kids if I waited that long.

I get that it’s perverse how we place so much of the cost of raising children in parents. At the same time, waiting until you’re “already established” is too much.

You may have had great reasons for doing this. But if this becomes a widely accepted expectation we are going to relying heavily on immigration.

> won't want to start a family while living in the relative instability of rented accommodation

it should be alleviated by making rental accommodation more stable - such as a longer term contract. What if you had a 30 year contract rental (with built-in, but known ahead of time increases).

That’s just a mortgage with extra steps…

not the same - a mortgage require a deposit. Renting will be cheaper, because a deposit is basically a capital cost (that people comparing renting and buying don't take into account).

A common problem with rent control (can’t raise rent to match market) in cities is the landlord stops doing maintenance or starts moving in folks who are dangerous or threatening to tenants to get them to leave.

> starts moving in folks who are dangerous or threatening to tenants to get them to leave

Seems a high risk, desperate maneuver. What's the end-game for the landlord? A building full of drug dealers, in perpetuity? Keeping maintenance up to city code could be a burden, and the insurance company might start to get wise.

Usually the dangerous folks are people on the payroll, and the end game is selling the property to someone else to be turned into something higher end once the normal tenants are out.

Sometimes it’s just to have tenant churn to allow them to get higher rents. Rent control for long periods of time can cause very large disparities between current market rents and what a tenant is paying (thousands/mo). The dangerous folks aren’t usually obvious when first checking out a unit.

At least in NYC, there is a lot of reputed Mafia involvement in real estate.

in germany and austria time limited renting contracts are illegal. renting is always month to month, but landlords have no rights to evict anyone ever unless they do damage to the property or fail to pay their rent for at least a few months, and they still may have to sue to actually make the eviction stick. the only exception is landlords who only rent out a single home, and they can prove that they now need that home for themselves (or for their kids). these are not common though. most landlords are agencies that manage multiple properties.

so as long as you pay your rent and don't do anything illegal or damaging, you can't be evicted. the worst that can happen is a rise of the rent, but even that is often limited to not go beyond the average market rate for the area.

>in germany and austria time limited renting contracts are illegal

No they're not illegal. In Austria you see time limited rental contracts all the time, usually 3 years. It's rare to find unlimited rental nowadays as landlords want to make money.

oh, sorry, i just looked it up. you are right. austria does allow time limited contracts. 3 years is the minimum, however. you can't have shorter time limits. also after the first year the tenant may terminate the contract any time (with 3 months advance notice), the landlord may not. and there is another interesting detail: time-limited contracts must be 25% less than comparable unlimited contracts. this however is rarely enforced unless the tenant notices. (they can get back overpaid rent for up to 10 years).

germany doesn't allow time limited contracts. there are only two exceptions. a time limited contract is allowed if the landlord can claim to need to use the property themselves after the end of the contract (which they can only do if they don't have multiple properties to rent), or if they have plans to tear down or renovate the building.

Yeah, but finding a decent place to rent in Germany is the real problem.

It's nearly impossible as everyone is locked into their rental units and will never move.

You basically have to wait for someone to die.

but that's a problem everywhere that doesn't build enough new units to meet the demand. and i don't think it is any easier to buy a place. nor is it any easier to find a place to rent in the US.

Sorry but no, it IS much easier to find a place to rent in the US.

In Germany, the scarcity is so high that realtors can afford to ghost you left and right despite you having money and then when you finally get to view an apartment there's like 80+ people viewing it and only the one with the best portfolio (full of your private info that they normally shouldn't be allowed to have) gets it. This madness is nowhere near what it's like in the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com