Personally I find the decline in birth rate to be a good thing long term, and in fact I think the goal should be for zero or even NEGATIVE global growth. If we can achieve this, it will finally (eventually) give an opportunity for housing to be more affordable again with the slowdown in new construction and more inventory coming onto the market as people pass away. Imagine a world where houses go on the market and you can walk right in and purchase a property without even bidding against anyone else. A world where there is always plenty of vacancy, and prices must be competitive.
People have debt for 30 years now just to buy a small house these days, that is insane. And if the population continues to increase, the problem will only get worse.
Although it would also be a huge help if people stopped crowding together in a small handful of cities that is a tiny % of the city too.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
The problem with housing is that most of it tends to be the rich man's game right now. From what I have seen, even hedge funds are starting to buy in so I wonder if ownership of a home wouldn't be overpriced and that would result in most people renting. The rent could still be cheap but the property's value makes it a worthwhile investment for the rich.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I dont think the price of housing has anything to do with the population per se. It is rather a matter of where the population grows. There is plenty of land. The challenge is we have seen decades of migration from rural to urban areas. That means we all packed into a small landmass as opposed to being spread out.
In the US, for example, most people live within a 70 mile radius of a major city. The urban sprawl is such that the cities start to link up.
This is a result of the monopoly on good paying jobs. It is going to reverse as the remote work situation changes the entire geographic dynamic.
So it isnt a matter of the number of people, it is the fact we are trying to pack them all into small areas.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta