• Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    2 months ago

    In many cases, the failure to downsize is caused by the lack of affordable smaller housing. If a smaller flat is more expensive - if at all available - why should or could they downsize?

    • clover@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      And with the rate that the market has increased, of course smaller is more expensive than staying for a majority.

  • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Blaming individuals instead of the huge vampire corporations that suck up a significant chunk of housing. Need to change tax laws to make it painful, if not at least financially stupid, to own more than 2-3 properties at most.

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      And the people that worked in jurisdiction that allowed that in the first place…

      You know, boomers.

      • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        See, true, but here’s the thing. $50 trillion has moved from the bottom 90% to the top 1% over the past few decades. We can bitch about <our group> vs <their group>, and when it’s a very small group of vampires fucking the rest of us. Boomers are around 20% of the population. Blaming boomers in general just doesn’t seem honest, as most of them aren’t in that 1%. I feel like we should be focusing on the system.

        Then again, fucking Boomers worshiped at the senile altar of Reagan, invented Disco, and in general happily sold out their ideals for the '80s. Fuck boomers.

        What I really wish we had is better voters. But, as the old saying goes,“Wish in one hand, shit in the other…”

  • kitnaht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    There is no reason that they should downsize. A paid off house is a security against bad times. Moving; even downsizing – involves real estate agencies and all of the fees associated with a house changing hands. Additionally, if the chickens come home to roost, who’s to say you won’t need the space in the future to prevent children (even adult children) from being homeless?

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Do you have boomer parents? I do, and they definitely need to downsize because they’re getting too old to be able to keep up with the yardwork and other maintenance. An empty-nester couple just doesn’t need a 3000+ square foot house. And they know it, too! They want to downsize. The only reason they haven’t yet is that they can’t decide where to move to.

  • brettvitaz@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    I remember when baby boomers downsizing was a problem because they were taking the starter homes. How the turn tables

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

      Blaming everyone except billionaire thieves is how billionaire thieves get away with being billionaire thieves.

  • Ben Matthews@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I suspect this is true in much of Europe too, although lack a dataset to check it. People underestimate the importance of changing demographics and family structures.