Prices have risen by 54% in the United States, 32% in China and nearly 15% in the European Union between 2015 and 2024. Though policies have been implemented to increase supply and regulate rentals, their impact has been limited and the problem is getting worse

Housing access has become a critical issue worldwide, with cities that were once accessible reaching unsustainable price points. Solutions that have been proposed, like building more houses, capping rents, investing in subsidized housing and limiting the purchase of properties by foreigners have not stemmed the issue’s spread. Between 2015 and 2024, prices rose by 54% in the United States, 32% in China and by nearly 15% in the European Union (including by 26% in Spain), according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Salaries have not grown apace with real estate prices. In the EU, the median rent rose by 20% between 2010 and 2022, with rental and purchase prices growing by up to 48%, according to Eurostat. Underregulated markets are wreaking havoc, and in the United States and Spain, 20% of renters spend more than 40% of their income on housing, while in France, Italy, Portugal and Greece, that percentage varies between 10% and 15%, according to the OECD. Many countries have created programs aimed at increasing the future supply of public housing, but their effectiveness has yet to be determined and analysts say that results will be limited if smarter regional planning decisions are not made.

  • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    If you work for your money, you’re part of the struggle. If you own for your money, you’re part of the problem.

    The problem is capital and it always has been. Sure, there’s a concerted effort by capital to deflect the anger due to them onto CEOs and the like but we have to be smart enough and worldly wise enough not to fall for it.

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      If you work for your money, you’re part of the struggle. If you own for your money, you’re part of the problem.

      But the middle class is those who are able to leverage working for their money to accumulate capital to where they can live off of the proceeds of that owned capital. If you’re able to retire, you eventually become part of the ownership class.

      There is a shrinking middle class but the actual people in it are those who split their adult lives into eventually retiring on their wealth, accumulated through working.

        • booly@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Middle class generally means people whose incomes are in the middle half (ranging from 40th to 60th percentile to the 20th to 80th).

          If you want to pull out your own new definition based on whether their income comes from work or from return on investments, then I’d still point out there’s a large number of people who do both, especially when compared across the entire life cycle including retirement. So if you insist on this alternative definition, you still have to account for the big chunk of the population who do both.

          • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            I have to admire the brazenness with which you made up your own utterly unfounded definition of the term “middle class” then, immediately after being called out for it, accuse the person who hadn’t provided any definition of the term of doing exactly what you had just done.

            Thats some advanced level bad faith engagement right there.

            Its not my definition. Its a different school of thought that has stood up to scrutiny. It is different to what a lot of people would refer to as middle class and, of course, different again from what you, personally describe middle class to be.

            I don’t really recognise a middle class but, if one is to exist, it is simply the middle earners of people who work for their money and they’re predominantly white collar workers. That’s all there is to it. What you described is petite bougouise and may well be middle class but not all middle class people are petite bougouise.

            • booly@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Its not my definition. Its a different school of thought that has stood up to scrutiny. It is different to what a lot of people would refer to as middle class and, of course, different again from what you, personally describe middle class to be.

              I’m specifically pointing out the problem with the “how they earn income” definition, that it seemingly assumes that the two categories are mutually exclusive, to try to argue that there’s no such thing as a middle class They’re not. Most people who are in what most would recognize as “middle class” under the traditional definition get income through both methods, especially over the course of their lifetimes.

              So even under that definition, which attempts to pretend there isn’t a middle class, there is still a middle class: those who have income through both methods, or even hybrid methods (ownership of an actively managed business that allows them to earn money while working but wouldn’t earn money without their own labor).

              • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                It would be a very small amount, compared to what they earn over their lifetime. The idea that someone is middle class because they’ve earned a penny in bank interest is absurd.

                Or are you planning on coming back with a load of caveats you conveniently left out previously?

                • booly@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  The median net worth of a 65-year-old in the United States is about $390k, so the income it produces is generally a modest supplement to social security. At the 75th percentile, which is also generally considered middle class, net worth is about $1.1 million and easily enough to provide a comfortable retirement lifestyle.

                  The idea that someone is middle class because they’ve earned a penny in bank interest is absurd.

                  No, the idea is that the middle class (defined in the conventional way) spends time in both the “worker” category and the “owner” category.

                  The ordinary middle class pathway is to work for 30-50 years and then retire on their savings (or a defined contribution retirement plan) or to rely on a defined benefit pension fund that is itself invested in securities, aka capital. This is the baseline expectation of retirement planning for the middle class in the U.S.: the investments/savings provide the cash to live on, while ownership of the primary residence shields the retiree from certain housing costs, or can provide cash flow through a reverse mortgage.

                  Through the power of compounding, a 40+ year savings plan generally increases its value over time so that the vast majority of the value comes from return on investment rather than invested principal.

                  If you want specific calculations, we can do that to show that the typical middle class path takes in more than “a very small amount” in their retirement savings/investments.

                  Or are you planning on coming back with a load of caveats

                  These details are obvious from my first comment in this thread, that the middle class in the United States works its way into an “ownership class” in time for retirement, through savings/investment. That’s exactly what I meant in that comment, and spelling it out makes it pretty clear what I meant at that time, and that I haven’t shifted my position in this thread.

                  • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    But some who has earned a penny in interest has spent time as both worker and owner.

                    Its not that you’ve shifted it. I agree there. Its that your using sweeping terms that include things like earning a penny in interest that, in order to not sound ridiculous, has to have caveated to a point that:

                    No, the idea is that the middle class (defined in the conventional way) spends time in both the “worker” category and the “owner” category.

                    Doesn’t reflect where it ends up at all.

                    Also, its not the conventional way. You 100% made that up and what you’re describing is petite bougouise.

                    From wiki

                    The modern usage of the term “middle-class”, however, dates to the 1913 UK Registrar-General’s report, in which the statistician T. H. C. Stevenson identified the middle class as those falling between the upper-class and the working-class.[13] The middle class includes: professionals, managers, and senior civil servants. The chief defining characteristic of membership in the middle-class is control of significant human capital while still being under the dominion of the elite upper class, who control much of the financial and legal capital in the world.