openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
The new homeowner is the renter removed from the market, not the previous renter.
That’s a big assumption that the new homeowner was a previous renter and not just someone cohabiting or buying an additional home.
Not when we’re looking at large groups of people - there’s no reason to think the average number of occupants per home would change.
I didnt mention anything about the average number of occupants per home. What i did say was that, if 100 homes go from being rented to being sold, not all 100 homes will go to previous renters, for the reasons I mentioned above. Doesn’t that make sense?
If the average number of occupants isn’t changing, then cohabitation and second houses are irrelevant to this discussion.
To whom is the apartment being sold?
Perhaps you can find some statistics to back up your general point? If you’re right, then we should see the opposite correlation - higher homeownership with higher rents.
The average number of occupants doesn’t change because everyone will still be living somewhere (excluding homelessness but we can ignore that). However, that does not mean cohabitation and second houses are irrelevant.
Both of these scenarios are excluded from your example above. As a consequence of them, some renters will have to start cohabiting (or become homeless). The fact that there are more people who want to rent their (own) place then there are rental units will drive up rental prices.
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20181289
Here you go.
That’s an interesting comparison, thanks! I’ll think about this.
Cheers