Fellas, I’m drowning in things to do, but I can’t stop thinking about this article in the Atlantic by Richard Florida , called America Needs to Get Over Its House Passion, which I guess is a quote from Edmund Phelps or something. The more I think, the less sense it makes. It has been passed around and m’hm-ed all over the place with a lot of agreement, but something’s wrong. I wish I had time to take it apart slowly to see if it makes sense, but off the top off my head, I find myself wanting to defend the idea of home ownership. Florida points out that the rate of return on residential real estate is negligible after inflation. Sounds true enough; especially for home ownership as opposed to real estate investment. But that refers to resale value. I imagine that many or most Americans see home ownership as a different kind of investment; a lifestyle or a degree of security to aspire to, rather than a speculation. Assuming you manage to pay off a thirty year mortgage, you have a home at the end of it. Real estate. Shelter. Granted, it still costs money to own, but it’s very hard for anyone to take it away from you at that point.

In those cities, like Austin, in which rent is still a good bit cheaper than a mortgage, I suppose the assumption is that people ought to be investing the difference. The catch is where? The country is full of people who saved for retirement in nice, safe mutual funds and now have nothing to show for it. I also think some of the correlations go the opposite direction than those implied in the article. The same people who buy houses in blue collar towns are unlikely to bound out of their seats to go work in technology at the drop of a hat. I bet the reason home ownership is more common in places with lower incomes, wages, and economic output, is because life is more precarious, so the home as shelter is more important. People who are less educated are more vulnerable to changes in the larger economy. A person without a college education or professional experience can’t just run out and “innovate” if she gets fired. That kind of entitlement to be critical of the world around you and to imagine your ideas are worth something is all tied up with class.

And come on, home ownership is lower in areas with higher concentrations of the tech industry because higher concentrations of the tech industry cluster around educational institutions. The universities alone would make those areas more economically resilient. Also, transience in the tech industry is as age-related as is it is in students. Most of us burnt out on that life sometime in our thirties, and would sacrifice a lot to stay in one place and have a garden.

I’d also like to see that survey of homeowner vs renter happiness in an age bracket in which the homeowners are likely to have paid off their mortgages. (Or does that happen? Do people more often take out a second mortgage to put a kid through school or something?) There’s a lot of interesting data here, but I’m still not sure where the argument against home ownership comes from. What’s the alternative?

~

Kelly Dobson, lots of interesting stuff on the connections between people and machines.

~

Not much posting here because of all the aforementioned Things To Do, about which I will hopefully be able to post in six or eight weeks. Let me say though, that Mother’s Day commenced with flowers and maple candy, continued with Aure eating far more than his share of the candy, lying on the floor, bicycling his feet and shouting, Lemme go! Lemme go up to the ceiling! Next, a walk and a brunch determined by Aure, consisting of tacos of all the best parts (I can barely restrain myself from adding TM to the end of that, after following @wise_kaplan on Twitter for so long.) nopal, and orange juice. Finally, fewer hours of work than I have done in about ten days. A very fine day. Thanks Large and Small.