ᐅ Is the real estate market increasingly forcing families to build their own homes?
Created on: 6 Apr 2019 11:35
T
Thierse
Actually, we would prefer to avoid building. Unfortunately, existing properties within a 20 km (12 miles) radius have become quite expensive, and affordable rental houses with small gardens are simply scarce.
Until now, we have been living in an old rental apartment without a garden. We would like to change that, but there is a lack of options. The listings on various platforms are overcrowded with families looking for affordable housing.
Who is familiar with this situation, and how do you deal with it?
Until now, we have been living in an old rental apartment without a garden. We would like to change that, but there is a lack of options. The listings on various platforms are overcrowded with families looking for affordable housing.
Who is familiar with this situation, and how do you deal with it?
On today’s resale market, older homes with divided-light windows, without open-plan kitchens, featuring large entrance halls and traditional radiators, sell for top prices if well maintained and structurally sound. And if they are in a good location. Houses are not cars. Location and atmosphere matter more than this or that extra feature.
W
wurmwichtel13 Apr 2019 15:38chand1986 schrieb:
How did my (great) grandparents’ generation manage it? A 70-hour workweek underground, in the mine, at the hut, or as homemakers with children and little help, tending a garden plot on the side, yet solidarity was everywhere. The workday ended only when there was no one left to assist. They also raised more children than today, initially with an outdoor toilet and a coal stove. Either they were all superhuman, or it’s true: our modern lifestyle makes us physically weak, mentally impoverished, and less socially connected... Go to the nearest library (it’s like Wikipedia, but only accessible in physical form), grab some specialized books from that era, and take some time to read them.
Working hours were longer, but the pressure was lower. Output per worker was also significantly less than today, so the overall burden was lower, especially since production always required craftsmanship, but usually did not demand interdisciplinary qualifications.
Anyone who thinks this can be directly applied to today simply has no idea how things really were back then.
BTW:
Human behavior hasn’t progressed one bit in the last 140 years. It’s still all about maximizing profit and pushing one’s own interests without regard for the consequences for others.
Where does this insight come from? I have books from that period at home and have read the collection, which currently totals about 130,000 pages.
You can draw a lot of conclusions from that.
wurmwichtel schrieb:
Humanity’s actions have not progressed at all in the last 140 years. It still revolves around maximizing profit and enforcing one’s own interests without considering the consequences for others.You don’t need to read a thousand pages to realize that—unfortunately, you can see it every day...
C
chand198613 Apr 2019 16:33@wurmwichtel
My question was rhetorical. What you describe is correct, but I don’t have to read about it—I experience it in the (almost) daily work with people.
Today, people are expected to have more professional skills, think cross-functionally and holistically. As employees, mind you. As consumers, at the same time, people are supposed to be influenceable, moldable, alienated from themselves.
Both at the same time isn’t possible, but our training systems mainly educate toward the latter. As a result, people eventually end up in positions that sound important but still don’t really have many skills. When they realize it, they get overwhelmed and burn out; when they don’t realize it, these are exactly the “competence refugees” who already act as if they hold “important positions.”
And the next generation of children from such parents is really in deep trouble.
Those who equip their house with unnecessary extras today just because “everyone has them”… well, that’s also somewhat consumer-driven. Preservation of value, please…
Convenience is a much better and more understandable argument.
My question was rhetorical. What you describe is correct, but I don’t have to read about it—I experience it in the (almost) daily work with people.
Today, people are expected to have more professional skills, think cross-functionally and holistically. As employees, mind you. As consumers, at the same time, people are supposed to be influenceable, moldable, alienated from themselves.
Both at the same time isn’t possible, but our training systems mainly educate toward the latter. As a result, people eventually end up in positions that sound important but still don’t really have many skills. When they realize it, they get overwhelmed and burn out; when they don’t realize it, these are exactly the “competence refugees” who already act as if they hold “important positions.”
And the next generation of children from such parents is really in deep trouble.
Those who equip their house with unnecessary extras today just because “everyone has them”… well, that’s also somewhat consumer-driven. Preservation of value, please…
Convenience is a much better and more understandable argument.
wurmwichtel schrieb:
Working hours were longer, but the pressure was lower. Also, the output per worker was significantly lower than today, and therefore the overall workload was less, especially since the production always required craftsmanship but usually did not demand interdisciplinary qualifications.An important observation! That’s true. People had to work hard in the past. But there were also quiet positions at the post office, railway, or government offices. And fewer temporary jobs and lifelong learning like we have today...
Regarding housing in general: For many people, large rooms and gardens are a burden. This often becomes apparent only over time and with increasing age. Nowadays, people are professionally highly challenged, and not everyone feels like spending their weekends doing house maintenance.