New US homeownership measure puts people first
A new metric from the Minneapolis Fed aims to measure U.S. homeownership by the share of adults who own the home they live in, rather than the share of homes occupied by an owner. Commenters welcome the clearer focus on people and wealth distribution, but argue the old and new measures capture different policy goals and both are distorted by factors like multigenerational living, renting by choice, and heavy financialization of housing. The thread broadens into whether governments should prioritize homeownership at all, how housing costs versus other necessities shape wellbeing, and how regulation, zoning, and investment incentives drive today’s affordability crisis.
New metric vs traditional homeownership rate
- Article’s HPOP metric counts what share of adults own the home they live in, vs the traditional “what share of housing units are owner-occupied.”
- Many see both as useful but measuring different things: HPOP is people-centric (wealth, security), while unit-based owner‑occupancy is about housing stock and land-use.
- Some argue the new metric better reflects actual distribution of ownership and avoids counting non‑owners (e.g., adult children, roommates) as “homeowners.”
- Others think it’s “apples vs oranges” and object to implicitly framing HPOP as strictly superior.
Critiques of HPOP and edge cases
- Several commenters say HPOP “punishes” multigenerational or shared living: a household with two owning parents and co‑resident parents/children scores lower than if everyone split into separate homes.
- Concern that as cultures with multigenerational norms grow, HPOP may show falling “homeownership” even if housing situations are desired and secure.
- Some suggest more nuanced metrics: consider who is on the deed, who pays the mortgage, mortgage vs equity share, whether co‑residents want that arrangement, and household size.
Owning vs renting: risk, security, and preference
- Strong thread arguing renting can be rational: less concentration of wealth in one asset, more flexibility, lower financial risk over short horizons.
- Counter‑view: renting is less secure and subject to landlord decisions, rent hikes, and forced moves; ownership anchors people in community and stabilizes costs.
- Debate over whether policy should aim to maximize ownership at all; some say renting “should be just as good,” others insist ownership is crucial for wealth-building and long‑term stability.
Housing as asset class and inequality
- Many see single‑family homes as over‑financialized: speculation, multiple vacation/investment homes, institutional landlords, and regulatory barriers that restrict supply.
- Tension noted: you can’t simultaneously want housing to be a great investment and broadly affordable.
- Proposed fixes: land value taxes, less restrictive zoning, streamlined permitting, more dense/multi‑family and social housing, and discouraging hoarding of multiple properties.
Broader economic and statistical context
- Housing, health care, and education are seen as “mandatory expenses” that have become much more expensive even as many manufactured goods got cheaper.
- Several commenters distrust headline statistics (CPI, homeownership rate, household income), arguing methods often obscure lived reality or misrepresent distributional issues.