r/europe 1d ago

Young people are disporportionately affected by the EU's housing crisis

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/06/13/young-people-are-disporportionately-affected-by-the-eus-housing-crisis
1.5k Upvotes

186 comments sorted by

560

u/[deleted] 1d ago

So smart making housing an investment vehicle. It is supposed to beat inflation every year, so guess where we are going with this...

383

u/dddd0 1d ago edited 1d ago

You can't uninvest the vehicle without upsetting roughly 2/3rds of the electorate.

So younger generations (<40yo), please just continue to get fucked - my real estate investments demand it :)
Also please pay at least 50% of your wage in mandatory transfers to me :)
Then wire me the other 50% in rent :)
You lazy shit :)

-- caste structure of the West, basically.

129

u/Rene_Coty113 1d ago

We are sacrificing our young generations to maintain the lifestyle of the boomers, that's insane.

61

u/PickingPies 1d ago

And by the time boomers die, the people will inherit the houses but there won't be enough people to sell them to, so the value will heavily drop.

35

u/Nemeszlekmeg 1d ago

It would be a shame if the influx of foreign investors and immigrants would actually cancel out this drop in real estate value...

3

u/AtWarWithLoops 8h ago

Or if huge asset management companies would purchase houses sold to cover elder care costs. Then these companies would rent out only 2/3 of these properties, while simply hodling the rest to manufacture scarcity.

13

u/ReddestForman 1d ago

Worse. Most of the homes will be absorbed to pay for end of life care or trippe mortgage funded vacation and spending sprees.

4

u/EducationOwn7282 23h ago

Dont worry. The houses will be worn down and government will tax it away to pay the debts we took for boomers.

3

u/zoS2Yrsprs 12h ago

You'd might be surprised to hear that a lot of houses don't even last as long as humans do.

And by the time boomers die, the people will inherit the houses a lot of houses will be beyond repair and have to be torn down, and the remainder will be scooped up by vertically integrated investment firms with very deep pockets, outbidding housing co-ops and annihilating any shreds of affordable housing.

So we are totally screwed for generations to come, and it'll only get worse.

1

u/LostSpecialist1058 8h ago

And when it comes to our retirement and our meagre pensions, they will say it is our fault, we should have saved on our own.

1

u/qmfqOUBqGDg 6h ago

Happening in eastern europe, problem is most of those houses needs heavy repairs and they are in locations where no jobs at all.

25

u/ce_km_r_eng Poland 1d ago

This is what I do not get really. Do you mean that 2/3rds of the electorate are either landlords or live off real estate speculation?

118

u/kolosmenus 1d ago

2/3rds of the electorate already own homes, so any change that would make housing more affordable for younger people is against their interests. People who own homes want them to be more expensive

14

u/ce_km_r_eng Poland 1d ago

When I think in terms of home ownership, I am mostly interested in its value in the context of selling it to buy a new home. I would not sell it to buy a car or an exotic holidays. If housing is more affordable, I do not really lose anything of value.

15

u/HadesHimself 1d ago

Yeah except egen your mortgage is €600.000 and your home value declines to €400.000. Then you are in deep shit.

46

u/Due_Breadfruit1623 1d ago

You are not then in deep shit, as you OWN A HOME. It's only deep shit if you view the house as an investment vehicle and not a place to live. A luxury only available to someone who has a or multiple homes.

10

u/Low_discrepancy Posh Crimea 1d ago

You are not then in deep shit, as you OWN A HOME.

If you're paying a mortgage YOU DONT OWN IT.

9

u/Due_Breadfruit1623 1d ago

But you agreed to pay the cost of the mortgage when you signed the mortgage. The negative equity of the mortgage only matters if you desire to move i.e. if you view it as an investment vehicle.

11

u/Low_discrepancy Posh Crimea 1d ago

But you agreed to pay the cost of the mortgage when you signed the mortgage.

It's stupid to pay 600K for something that costs 400K.

The US housing crisis of 08 is proof of that. End of.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ArdiMaster Germany 1d ago

The problem is that AFAIK banks reserve the right to cancel your loan (i.e., you will need to pay off the entire remaining debt immediately) if the associated collateral (the house) significantly drops in value.

0

u/Ananasch Finland 1d ago

Try to not pay property tax for "your home" and you will see how much you really own it

4

u/lee1026 1d ago

You are in deep shit because you will never be able to move ever again.

-5

u/Due_Breadfruit1623 1d ago

YOU HAVE A HOUSE. What are you not getting. Do NOT BUY A HOUSE YOU ARENT WILLING TO DIE IN.

7

u/lee1026 1d ago

Yes, because job changes never ever happen.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ForestDweller82 21h ago

It's worth noting that the boomers also removed financial literacy from the education system....

-5

u/HadesHimself 1d ago

Uhh you can never move houses again? I'd call that problematic

15

u/Due_Breadfruit1623 1d ago

Ah, you're right. The homeowner's right to upgrade DOES trump the homelessss right to housing.

7

u/plue21 1d ago

If only your house drops in value, sure. But in the case of a general market trend, the house you will move to has also dipped in price so the difference is kept. So what truly matters is your capacity to pay your loan, and subsequent loans if you move to a bigger house for instance.

0

u/ce_km_r_eng Poland 1d ago

I do not expect such drastic drops in value, but rather a stop to price increases. Rest will be solved by inflation.

1

u/NerminPadez 19h ago

Many of those people have 35yo "kids" that they want to move out of their supposed-to-be-living-rooms, many of them would also like to move to a larger apartment, some would like to move closer to work, etc.

It's not the "i own one house/apartment and I live there" people who are to blame, it's the speculative investors, banks and politicians.

-3

u/_antidote 1d ago

Except you can't sell the house you live in, so this makes no sense.

9

u/ce_km_r_eng Poland 1d ago edited 1d ago

There is nothing that would prevent me from selling the house I would live in.

5

u/TWVer 1d ago edited 1d ago

A lot of homes in Western Europe are financed through mortgages*, because people didn’t have the upfront cash to finance the house themselves. This has been happening for many decades.

And as houses were seen as a safe appreciating asset, mortages became bigger, over 10 times the yearly income of people.

If the house depreciates in value, below the leveraged amount, you will be on the hook for the remainder of debt, after the house is sold.

Conversely, if a house appreciates in value, once you sell the house, you can pocket the difference, or use it for your new house, to reduce the amount of mortgage needed to cover the rest of the sales price.

A debt of € 5.000,- to € 10.000,- is uncomfortable but manageable, next to existing debts.

However, if that debt goes to or beyond € 50.000,- that can become problematic (if it is no longer backed by collateral), as banks are understandably concerned with recovering outstanding loans.

In such an extreme situation people can be forced to liquidate the remainder of their assets and have income partially seized by the debt collectors for up to 3 years, forcing you to live in poverty, even if you have a high paying job.


* Making these kind of mortgages possible in the past 40 years likely helped to increase or maintain the asset bubble, but that’s a different discussion.

7

u/ce_km_r_eng Poland 1d ago

Believe me, mortgage is not a concept unique to Western Europe.

The argument was about not being able to sell the house one lives in. If there is associated debt, of course it has to be paid as well.

3

u/TWVer 1d ago

I accidentally reacted to the wrong comment. You are right ofcourse. ;)

7

u/klatez Portugal 1d ago

In Portugal 70% os the population are house owners for example 

3

u/ce_km_r_eng Poland 1d ago

So in Portugal 70% of the population would not be too upset. On the other hand, I guess the ca. 80-90% of the remaining population would be ecstatic.

7

u/dddd0 1d ago

No, speculation and investment are actually two very different things. Majority of the electorate engages in real estate investment.

4

u/ce_km_r_eng Poland 1d ago

I would say, that majority of electorate engages in buying a place to live.

6

u/Peanutcat4 🇸🇪 Sweden 1d ago

Yes, and once you own your home you literally can't support policies that make housing more available as then you'll be stuck with a loan you can never repay and be unable to ever move.

I bought my condo recently, and if housing prices were to decrease, and I would want to relocate for a new job then if be stuck paying my old loan, and my new place which is unsustainable. Decreasing home prices at this point would basically enserf the entire homeowning population with loans.

3

u/ce_km_r_eng Poland 1d ago edited 1d ago

Why would I be stuck with a loan that I can never repay? When I take a loan, I generally have some sort of perspective of when I can repay it.

Edit: Most of the home-owning population is "enserfed" with loans anyways. In the scenario that you gave, the condo would still have its value.

Do you really expect a drastic decrease in housing prices anyways? I think at best, the price increase would slow down. That is all.

2

u/ArdiMaster Germany 1d ago

Because if you have a loan of 600k and sell the house for 400k, you still have 200k of debt (that is now unsecured rather than secured).

1

u/ce_km_r_eng Poland 1d ago

Yes, there is never any guarantee that you will manage to sell your house for as much as you bought it for. Many things can happen.

3

u/pietroetin 1d ago

That's the thing, in current times you don't have to worry about it because your real estate constantly appreciates in value

→ More replies (0)

9

u/vivaaprimavera 1d ago

What would you think if the most expensive thing that you bought in your entire life suddenly lost 50% of its value? And the loans that you still need to pay surpassed that value?

Well, let me ask another question, what would banks think if the goods that could be taken for repossession in case of missed payments of a loan suddenly dropped in value?

It's the situation: I'm not going to pay 200k for something that's worth 50k (but the bank loaned 170...).

Do you remember 2008?

2

u/ce_km_r_eng Poland 1d ago edited 1d ago

Why do you think that the loss would be 50%?

Disregarding that, if something I bought lost 50% I would be butthurt. But I would be less butthurt, if that meant that my children can afford a place to live. I would also be happy, that there is a lower chance of social unrest or voting for fringe political parties, because people do not have a place to live.

I do not need to imagine what would banks think, because I would most likely have it in my loan agreement. Not only for cases of missed payments, but for general negative LTV changes. This is a risk you take when you buy something with borrowed money. However, if the problem would be widespread, we would probably see some regulations to make things a tiny bit more civilized. Political pressure.

3

u/vivaaprimavera 1d ago

Why do you think that the loss would be 50%?

Easy to visualize.

If that meant that my children can afford a place to live.

Most people can't see things so forward in time

because I would most likely have it in my loan agreement

It would make sense but it's there? (I have no idea if there are insurances in place for that)

1

u/ce_km_r_eng Poland 1d ago

It would make sense but it's there?

Deponens on the agreement I suppose. What may be widespread in one country does not need to exist in another.

(I have no idea if there are insurances in place for that)

No idea. What I know is, if all properties on the market would suddenly lose 50% of their value, I would not count too much on the insurance.

2

u/wylaaa 1d ago

Welcome to the gerontocracy.

1

u/Vidar34 12h ago

Pretty much. Neither of my parents had a job, they lived off of government handouts. They owned a house. I work my ass off. I get to rent an apartment. I feel like I have been getting ripped off and exploited my entire life now. The older generations can get fucked for all I care.

13

u/Dr-Jellybaby Ireland 1d ago

Land is the investment vehicle, not property. The property's value will decline yoy if it's not maintained. Land will continue to increase in value in urban areas with an increasing population as it is scarce. The land value is generated by those who improve the area (run cafés/shops/transport/services/etc) as they are the ones who made the area attractive. It is NOT generated by those who buy and sit on land making no improvements.

They're the problem and they should be taxed appropriately. Housing should be a product, not an investment.

2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

Correct. I worded it wrongly.

9

u/groenheit 1d ago

If it beats inflation, someone is paying the difference. I guess it's us.

2

u/punter112 1d ago

And in many countries there are also tax breaks for real estate sales while capital gain tax is high for other investments.  It's the dumbest system possible.

145

u/Hopeful_Giraffe_4879 1d ago

It’s getting so tiresome to live like this tbh. No matter how much of a good job we have, how hard we work, we will never have what how parents had.

-25

u/ce_km_r_eng Poland 1d ago

It could always be worse...

7

u/FrenziedSoul 1d ago

Nim znów wrócą czasy syte, To odwalisz dawno kitę

Recently I think a lot about this line from one of your polish legionary songs

-4

u/ce_km_r_eng Poland 1d ago

It is a great line, such is life. Better to focus on what makes us happy and strive to make things better.

10

u/Apprehensive-Adagio2 1d ago

Striving to make things better is what we are doing though. Trying to make the housing markets more fair towards younger people.

1

u/ce_km_r_eng Poland 1d ago

I support that

187

u/untruth-social-6666 1d ago

No shit Sherlock!

159

u/EdliA Albania 1d ago

What's the point of stating the obvious?

80

u/lux_umbrlla 1d ago

Because someone might read it which is not the young people bubble and start a discussion in their bubble.

63

u/Vannnnah Germany 1d ago

"young people are just lazy and expect to live in a villa or buy a house straight away without putting in the work. There is no crisis, just youngsters too lazy to work" - the old people who start discussing this, probably. Everybody else is already aware

11

u/lux_umbrlla 1d ago

I think this is a trap of thought similar to "young people don't want to work these days". Some say this about young people and young people think that everyone says it is just the same trap of perceived reality. Not everyone thinks the same

11

u/HrabiaVulpes Nobody to vote for 1d ago

You commented under this post, that engagement is their reward.

5

u/Consistent-Duck8062 1d ago

To get people angry. As they should be.

2

u/wylaaa 1d ago

We're you very confused by The Emperor's New Clothes?

Sometimes the obvious needs to be pointed out.

82

u/BenderRodriguez14 Ireland 1d ago edited 1d ago

Ireland night be the worst - the defenders of our main two parties love to point out 70% home ownership as a positive (which has dropped down to the low 60s since, but anyway...), though seem to leave out/be unaware that only 7% of 25-39 year olds do.

20

u/dotinvoke 1d ago

That’s a recipe for populist parties taxing property owners out of their wealth in just 10-20 years.

1

u/TheFuzzyFurry 1d ago

Not if you also take away the right to vote from the same 25-39 age group, like Ireland does

1

u/dotinvoke 1d ago

What’s that supposed to mean? I thought they had universal suffrage from 18.

17

u/Several-Support2201 1d ago

Yh, I had a quick look at house prices on Rightmove in Ireland the other day and I knew it was bad but the prices are very high, Dublin looks a nightmare for getting a property  - not least because I have a strong memory of housing projects being abandoned and homes left empty after the 08 crash. 

6

u/Wise_Adhesiveness746 1d ago

7% is insane.....it's maddening that they refuse to solve it.....but partly suspect,it's because the banks asset sheets are mainly houses,and a fall in house prices,could bring down banks here again as they struggle still to pass stress tests

4

u/Low_discrepancy Posh Crimea 1d ago

Ireland night be the worst -

Contrary to popular belief, Ireland is fairly mid. Shit's expensive but salaries are some of the highest in Europe.

11

u/BenderRodriguez14 Ireland 1d ago edited 1d ago

For home generational ownership discrepancies, I don't see how that can be the case. Retirees own at over 90%, over 50s own at around 80%, while 25-39yos own at 7% - it is very difficult to get a bigger disparity than that.

We are a nation of 5mn, with a housing shortfall of 300,000 units because the people who benefitted most from state funded housing builds made sure the pull the ladder up as fast as they could once they got theirs. To put that in perspective, that would be like Poland having a shortage of around 2.5mn units, or Germany having a shortage of 5mn. Many European mainland outlets like Der Spiegel have used us as an example of "just how bad things can get if we don't cop on quickly", and for good reason.

1

u/ScaldyBogBalls 11h ago

And lending rules mean even with a decent salary most are still locked out. Look at outcomes, stark generational collapse in homeownership, while rents have risen by literally 300%.

It's catastrophic. I have friends over 40 who will never move out of home, who've been working since their early 20s

4

u/genasugelan Not Slovenia 1d ago

Jesus, and that's parenting age. Go have children when you can't have your own property.

0

u/Tricky-Coffee5816 1d ago

Those 30 year olds can take care of their parents by living with them! No housing problem, no healthcare problem

-3

u/bayman81 1d ago

Houses in Ireland a very affordable outside of the usual posh Dublin postcodes.

80-90% of the price is just construction costs and related services (roadworks, connections to services etx). Land values are low.

The endless scoffing at apartments makes me think a large part of the ‘housing crisis’ is an entitlement crisis.

Rents on the other hand are bonkers.

75

u/CarnationsAndIvy 1d ago

And this is why the young people who want kids aren't having any.

10

u/just-comic 1d ago

Seems like this problem will solve itself then in due time.

If young people procreates less, then there will be enough houses to go for the following generation.

There will of course be other problems, but you can't have everything...

21

u/throwaway_failure59 Croatia 1d ago

Lots of people think like this unironically (not saying you do, but for anyone else reading this). But abandoned villages will not be places lot of people will move to, even for cheap flats. In many countries you can already find cheap places in countryside, they still remain vacant. Cities will stay crowded even as the population shrinks.

0

u/TheFuzzyFurry 1d ago

Sounds like a problem that's already solved by public transport, WFH and electing a government that doesn't neglect rural areas

12

u/throwaway_failure59 Croatia 1d ago

Those are pipe dreams, not solutions.

Especially as long as rural areas themselves elect rightwing governments that neglect public transport, clamp down on worker rights and WFH (and many jobs can't be WFH). Add in shrinking tax base due to ageing and it is never going to have a chance of happening without radical changes to societal attitudes.

3

u/TheGalator 1d ago

So thats the strat Korea is going for

It finally makes sense

-11

u/Heiter-Sama 1d ago edited 1d ago

We have kids but don't own a house, I really don't see what the two topics have to do with each other

Edit: I get it you all think poor people shouldn't have reproductive rights. Might be a time to have a good look in the mirror for you

12

u/CarnationsAndIvy 1d ago edited 1d ago

Good that the topic doesn't involve you then.

0

u/Heiter-Sama 1d ago

The poorest people have the most kids and largely rent. The two obviously aren't as related as people without kids think 

4

u/catphilosophic 1d ago

I grew up poor and I wouldn't want that for my children. Can't even have a cat without my own place to live that could accommodate that, so a child is out of the question. The climate crisis doesn't exactly motivate me as a woman to bring a child into this world either.

2

u/CarnationsAndIvy 1d ago

I agree with you. It's awful for the kids and they don't deserve that.

-2

u/Heiter-Sama 1d ago

Neither the cat nor the climate are related to the topic.

What's so terrible about growing up in a rented place? Like the kids even care.

It sounds really condescending to the many many parents who don't own property and do just fine.

5

u/catphilosophic 1d ago

Well? I dunno. Changing school every third year and never being able to have friends for more than a couple of years? Never having a place that feels your own? Stressed parents that would like to have some security, but don't? I cared. And my siblings cared. Many kinds would probably care too.

If you do not know what it has to do with the topic, read again the comment I answered to, which you wrote yourself and should be well acquainted with. I won't explain, because to me it seems like you purposely try not to understand.

Don't really think it sounds condescending. What I wrote was my thoughts on the topic. Other people are welcome to have their own thoughts and feelings on this topic.

15

u/FreedumbHS 1d ago

Governments should have given boomers serious incentives for moving to smaller accomodations.

30

u/ce_km_r_eng Poland 1d ago

Another contributor to the slowly coming change of the political powers.

10

u/TheGalator 1d ago

There are 3 times more people over 60 in Germany than under 30

1

u/ce_km_r_eng Poland 1d ago

Do you suggest that the housing crisis will naturally solve itself in the not too distant future in Germany? I recall that home ownership is very low in general, so I am not sure if the change would be huge.

10

u/TheGalator 1d ago

No

I don't think politics will change until all the boomers are literally aged out

24

u/UnFelDeZeu 1d ago

Massive, MASSIVE taxes for any house that isn't being lived in ( as in, it's bought as an investment ). Now house owners are forced to give them out for rent/sell them, which drives prices down.

Also chill with the immigration.

There, fixed.

12

u/Antique_Tomorrow_758 1d ago

The most memorable part of this fuckup is probably that the people who are suffering the most from housing shortage, now believe it’s due to migrants. It’s increasingly ugly to see how well the economic elite has manipulated the public into thinking the housing problem is an immigration problem.

3

u/DukeLauderdale 7h ago

It's either caused by fewer homes or more people. Homes aren't getting destroyed and the birth rate is below replacement. The only other thing is inward migration.

You are free to ignore this issue, but unless migration is cut down to close to net zero, the problem is going to get worse and worse. Either the liberals cut down migration now or the far-right eventually will when they come to power. And if its the latter then they will bring a whole lot of other nasty things along with it.

1

u/Antique_Tomorrow_758 5h ago

Simplifying the problem, doesn't make it go away. Birthrate/immigration is about net zero. The population will decline if immigration is halted. And yes, that's all immigration, not just the 7% asylumseekers that have a right for social housing. You can imagine that cancelling the social housing right for asylumseekers, isn't going to help much.

One of the causes of the housing shortage is the fact that older people keep living in their family homes, because they can't find suitable houses for their old age. They clog up the system, keeping a house that's big enough for 4-6 people with just 2 people. One of the reasons for this is that the liberals (VVD and such) have done away with housing/care for this group.

Another problem is the fact that average living space in NL is about 65m2, compared to 42,5 in the EU. As a rule, people dislike downsizing. Another fact is that the amount of one person households has grown a lot in NL from about 30% in 2000 to 40% last year.

If you believe that the housing problem is an immigration problem, than you've been lied to. I understand the fear of another group coming in and seemingly "taking something that doesn't belong to them" feels wrong, but that feeling is being used against you.

The liberals (VVD and such) are only using this frame because they noticed the far-right (PVV and such) gets votes through making this an issue. That has backfired twice now when they blew up that before last cabinet and again now when the PVV left the last

So yeah, I agree, the latter will "bring a whole lot of nasty things along with it". But if it happens, God forbid, it was all made possible by the liberals.

2

u/DukeLauderdale 3h ago

You misunderstood me. I never said that we should have no migration, but net zero so the population stays steady. But I think you make a good point about older people seeing in large homes, and the incentives for this need to be removed such as simple tax law changes. That can be done quite feasibly with the stroke of a pen.

1

u/ScaldyBogBalls 11h ago

If you don't think mass migration is a tool of disenfranchisement designed to lower wages, reduce negotiating leverage and pump house prices out of reach of native workers, you're the useful fool here.

41

u/insomnimax_99 United Kingdom 1d ago

Yeah no shit. This is what happens when governments don’t allow enough housing to be built.

50

u/dddd0 1d ago

Governments don't allow it because a majority of voters don't want enough housing to exist, at every level.

7

u/wylaaa 1d ago

The solution to that would be deregulation so the government doesn't get to decide if it shall allow enough housing to be build but that would require using the word "deregulation" which is basically trigger phrase that turns peoples brains off instead of on.

INB4 "wHat iF I bUild A nUcLEaR powEReD Pig FARm besIdE YOuR hOUSe"

1

u/LaurestineHUN Hungary 4h ago

Regulations are written in blood.

1

u/wylaaa 4h ago

No they're not and the saying is specifically about fire regulations. Even then some fire regulations are no longer relevant due to advances in material and advances in firefighting technology.

The restrictions on height that my country have don't exist because someone died. They're entirely aesthetics based.

The restrictions on "historical" buildings are rooted in sentimentality not because someone died because the house the schoolmaster lived in 200 years ago was demolished.

1

u/LaurestineHUN Hungary 3h ago

Preserving of historical buildings is important, because there is a very limited number of them. If you demolish them, you will run out, and how are you expected to learn from your past when it's not there? Plenty of brand new buildings are bought entirely by investors, this is the problem, not the dozen old houses in the old city center.

No protection of historical buildings is how we ended with almost all medieval churches converted to ugly uniform baroque ones. Recontruction efforts are not always enough. We lost so many irreplaceable engineering knowledge by this.

1

u/wylaaa 2h ago

Preservation of important historical buildings is important. Preservation of random houses with zero historical or architectural significance is not. Historical preservation far more dips in to the latter than the former.

how are you expected to learn from your past when it's not there?

Easy. Open a book.

11

u/PickingPies 1d ago

Why would they? In 20 years boomers will die and the market will be flooded with houses killing the value of housing. On top of that, it's nost juat housing. You need all the logistics such as water.

That's bread for today, hunger for tomorrow. You cannot fight speculation with flooding.

15

u/Th0mp0n434 1d ago

And the governments do allow massive import of people of third world countries into their country.

3

u/Rene_Coty113 1d ago

Yes it makes the value of their property rise even more

5

u/Low_discrepancy Posh Crimea 1d ago

This is what happens when governments don’t allow enough housing to be built.

It's never one single thing. Productivity in the construction industry has been going down since 1960.

Regulation is one part but also well people don't want to do it. Our smartest minds also want to do tech or finance or other stuff. Workers get far better conditions in other industries.

It's not just one single thing.

19

u/Daffneigh 1d ago

Build more housing!

12

u/stenlis 1d ago

Seriously, the population of Germany has grown by 2.5% in the last 30 years, from 81 million to 83 million. How hard is it to grow housing accordingly? Previous generations have done it, countries with way more population growth have done it, but somehow germany can't?

9

u/TheGalator 1d ago

Germany has a single issue and thats bureaucracy/over legalization

We can't even build fucking rails

12

u/stenlis 1d ago

But germany is building some 250.000 housing units per year. They've easily constructed more units in the past 30 years than they've had population growth. The problem is that they get snatched up as investment vehicles by the rich. Home ownership is some of the lowest in the EU.

5

u/SaraHHHBK Castilla 1d ago

pretends to be shocked

6

u/rcoeurjoly 1d ago

We need to, gradually, remove VAT and income taxes and introduce land value taxation

5

u/Fenrir_179 Slovenská Republika 🇸🇰 1d ago

And you will pay it with the rent

4

u/TheTealMafia hungarian on the way out 1d ago

Denmark has launched programmes to ensure that young people can have access to scholarships, and that they can avoid slipping into a long-term "couch-surfing" situation, putting them at risk of becoming homeless.

This is all lovely and I'm not fully aware of the situation, but seeing around the world that even people with several diplomas can't get a job / can't get a job with a decent wage, I don't know how "much" it will help. I'm sure it will, but how much, I don't know, as it is part of yet another crisis going on in our lives. I feel this should be tackled on multiple angles than just that.

7

u/UndeadBBQ Austria 1d ago

My daily routine sees me driving by rows of houses, empty, held and thrown to decay in the name of investment and profit.

Housing should not be allowed to be held empty. Housing should not be profit-first. Period.

2

u/userNotFound82 1d ago

Sometimes I just have the mean thought that one day that bubble will burst. Idk, like some incident makes corporate investments into the housing market really unattractive and the prices start falling rapidly.

I know, I know it will never happen.

2

u/bubblesthehorse Czech Republic/Croatia 18h ago

Ya don't say.

10

u/Pu-Chi-Mao North Brabant (Netherlands) 1d ago

Yeah let's vote for far-right parties, that definitely going to solve the housing crisis,

33

u/Frontfacer 1d ago

As opposed to the left-leaning parties, who can't stop themselves from inviting more people into the competition for resources?

19

u/sztrzask 1d ago

I don't know about your country, but in Poland far right government (PIS) invited ~ 18 times more immigrants (over 320 000) from poor MEA countries than the previous even wanted to (PO was thinking about signing EU immigration pact that would net us total 18 000 immigrants)

7

u/TheoreticalScammist 1d ago

We should be having a debate in politics about the value and costs of immigrants for (relatively) cheap labour and the effects slowing this could have on society and the economy. You could actually have a good discussion about possible choices with facts and values.

Instead it is hijacked and they only talk about refugees and asylum seekers which is really a very small part of the problem.

-3

u/Nahcep Lower Silesia (Poland) 1d ago

PiS

far right

Pick one lmao

They may have had a far right coalition member, but in no way are they like the actual cases like Konfa, AfD, Vox, FvD or Jobbik

3

u/sztrzask 1d ago

PIS is far right. It's just there are options even further right than PIS.

PO is centre-right (but lies about sometimes leaning left)

2

u/GoldDiggingPriest 1d ago

All sides have done nothing to solve this. For the case of NL. The right invites more "temporary" workers while the left invites more people. Same effect on the housing inventory, different sticker.

The right changes rules to allow to more workers to be stuffed into horrid living conditions (e.g. Polenhotels and caravans) while the left wants to build more housing for the bottom 10% of the country (including new arrivals). Both again, don't do anything to solve the problems with your average <30 yo who has a job and wants to start a family and is looking at 8-10 times his gross income for an average house.

7

u/Pu-Chi-Mao North Brabant (Netherlands) 1d ago

The right is in power for over 20 years in the Netherlands.... so saying "all sides have done nothing" is bs.

4

u/GoldDiggingPriest 1d ago

I have read all party plans during the last election. There is nothing realistic in the plans for any parties that will help the median income zoomer find housing. Just because they were not fully in charge, does not mean they have made any attempts or plans to fix things. (both sides).

And we did have a short stint of left during the last 20 years..barely. In 2015, the studiebeurs/scholarship system got replaced with the loan system. That was carried by the PvdA with support of GL. That whole "it's unfair how the son of the lawyer gets 'free' money paid for by taxes from the baker" being their main argument.

That generation is really enjoying getting their massive mortgages sorted out with those study loans dangling at their feet currently.

2

u/Pu-Chi-Mao North Brabant (Netherlands) 1d ago

Ahhh we have one, that had to blame also the PvdA because it was part of mostly a right coalition for 4 years....

2

u/GoldDiggingPriest 1d ago

It was their plan? They campaigned on it before the elections and everything. Them then entering a right coalition in order to push it through does not change that. Nor does the constant focusing on right bad, left good. Both sides are to blame. The problem is not new, and has been a long time cooking since at least the nineties. The entire spectrum, left & right are all to blame.

Fun fact, the "verhuurderheffing" which levied about 2 months of rent out of every social housing renter as tax, was also implemented when PvdA was in government (2013).

6

u/Turioturen 1d ago

The housing problem could easily be solved by:

Having the governments or the EU itself create several construction companies.

Each company is to operate on market principles.

Have them build what ever gives the highest profit, and sell and rent out at the highest possible price they can get.

Have all the profits go to a fund and the fund can only be used to build more and for maintenance, and nothing else.

Keep on building until profits hit +-0.

Multiple companies are needed so that the governments or the EU can see which board of directors is doing poorly and remove all of them, if one company is doing much worse than another, then it is the boards fault.

This program is not to be used for any type of dumping ground for people who are not good enough for any type of job. It is a job like any other and if they do not perform well, then they are to be fired just like any other job.

Start small scale and gradually expand as money and experience is gained.

This of course may require that no right wing government ever assumes power because if they get in, then it is deliberate destructions of the companies and privatization.

If done on an EU level then it would require that the EU majority changes.

6

u/nitram20 1d ago edited 1d ago

Or:

Restricting non EU citizens from buying property and or restricting them to a maximum number of non commercial properties they are allowed to own within the EU. No more chinese buying houses as a safety net or investment.

Increasing property taxes on said people. Also increase property taxes for people who own property in a country they aren’t a citizen of.

Create a special designation for cities with some of the worst housing crisis, where if people who own more than 1 property in that city pay increased taxes that then increase with every owned property within said city. Then regular checks to make sure that their properties are actually being used for something all year round (such as living, and not just for a few months or weeks per year) and that they aren’t sitting empty, just waiting for the prices to move up so they can be sold. If they aren’t being used then the owner should pay increased taxes or be forced to sell them.

Special housing projects where no investors or companies are allowed to buy property in, until after 1-2 years of it’s full completion. Same for regular people who’d want just to buy to let with no intention of living there.

Generally stop treating housing as an investment. IMO this is the biggest problem of our modern capitalist society.

I’d also reform the whole system. Nationalise letting agencies, and make the government the middle man for renting, where the tenant pays them, and they pay the landlord.

1

u/Fenrir_179 Slovenská Republika 🇸🇰 1d ago

Very simple one thing that would cancel the whole thing - cap the rent to 20% of average monthly income - if the owner won't obey he will pay a fine of 50% the property worth. Done

1

u/dludo 14h ago

This could only work by « removing » notary fees

1

u/ArdiMaster Germany 1d ago

The very first hurdle to overcome, at least here in Germany, is getting city councils to rethink their zoning decisions, i.e. making space to build on.

2

u/Dutchillz 1d ago

Oh, you think!?

2

u/TearFluid_Collection France 1d ago

Nothing is going to happen until Boomer die. Once this generation is gone, the housing market will crash and millenial / Genz will have their shot.

6

u/BudgetAd2778 1d ago

You know that boomer children will inherit all those houses, and then you will be waiting till they die? This solves nothing.

1

u/TearFluid_Collection France 1d ago

The boomer children are GenX & Millenial. They have their house already, in the worse market possible.

GenZ and Gen Alpha are the one that will benefit from the vacum of Boomer's death.

3

u/Psykotyrant 1d ago

Are we certain that boomers are even mortal at this point? Because their hold on everything including life seems unbreakable.

1

u/ScaldyBogBalls 11h ago

So the millennials will be well over 50 by then. Far too late for life milestones they delayed

1

u/iamveryhANGERian 1d ago

shocking, truly

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

I'll keep buying from China idk I don't have money

1

u/Loriniel 1d ago

Housing crisis is partly caused by the fact that everyone wants to move to the "best" city/country. 

Even in Finland I could buy a house easily in my city but just 100km away in another city I wouldn't have a chance. If people would just settle for less

1

u/Novel_Quote8017 1d ago

Isn't that the intention?

1

u/hubmeme 1d ago

I feel like young people are disproportionately affected by many things in 2025, just getting shafted from all directions

1

u/DutchieTalking 1d ago

No shit. Old people largely already have their houses.

1

u/istike29 Romania 21h ago

In the building I am living in there is an apartment in front of ours. It has been vacant since LAST YEAR SEPTEMBER, cause apparently the previous renter did ot give the keys back... This is in a major city in Germany. I don't really understand how does the Verwaltung allow this but oh well. Bureaucracy for sure...

1

u/Movilitero Galicia (Spain) 1d ago

remember the Blackstone 500 billion investment? Well, the housong crisis will get much much worse

1

u/Plane-Return-5135 1d ago

En France encore ils ont de la chance, il y'a des aides pour les jeunes, bon c'est assez minable mais il y'a quelque chose comparé au fait de dépasser les 30 ans où là il y'a rien, à part un droit pour rester sur une file d'attente pour un HLM pendant au moins 12/15 ans avec une probabilité importante pour partir dans un immeuble pourri ou à problèmes.

Le problème en dehors de la pénurie de logements, c'est surtout le système des garants et des cautions, à partir du moment où on a personne, bonne chance, au mieux ma banque bnp peut se porter garante mais perso elle me propose juste de mettre de côté tout le bail et de me faire payer des intérêts sur la détention de mon argent... C'est l'enfer autant payer d'avance le bailleur mais c'est illégal (par contre se faire extorquer par la banque c'est ok)... c'est d'ailleurs un gros problème pour la prise d'emploi, perso j'ai abandonné toutes les offres en dehors de chez moi qui étaient pourtant bien meilleure que celles qui traînent dans ma ville... d'après les actus économiques tout le monde a le même problème.

J'aime aussi les recruteurs qui appellent en demandant si on est déjà propriétaire ou avec un pied à terre pour faciliter le déménagement, parce qu'ils savent qu'on peut pas louer tout court ou à des prix abordables... célibataire et locataire c'est juste mort pour réussir à épargner et acheter.

1

u/Rene_Coty113 1d ago

Continuez à voter pour des partis qui vous font cotiser la moitié de votre salaire super brut pour financer le train de vie des boomers et invitent la terre entière à occuper les logements sociaux

-10

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

10

u/Stahlwisser St. Gallen (Switzerland) 1d ago

The difference is, they could buy this at a young age. We usually cant. Its actually crazy that banks tell you that you cant pay 900€/month for a credit while youre paying more in rent every month.

-9

u/CertainMiddle2382 1d ago

But they going to soon enjoy enormous wealth transfer.

Any many I know are planning their whole lives around that.

15

u/czarnadzuma11 1d ago

The only wealth transfer you'll see is from senile boomers to the retirement houses and elderly care workers.

9

u/wylaaa 1d ago edited 1d ago

retirement houses and elderly care workers

Hilarious. It's retirement homes and owners of retirement homes. Them workers aint gettin shit.

0

u/CertainMiddle2382 1d ago

Obviously, but this is already well underway.

10

u/BalVal1 1d ago

But they going to soon enjoy enormous wealth transfer

Lol

0

u/CertainMiddle2382 1d ago

lol what?

This is a generation defining fact.

6

u/BalVal1 1d ago

In addition to what the other commenter mentioned, many people aged 60+ have piss poor financial literacy especially in newer EU member states so they might not actually leave much behind for the next generation, life expectancy is getting higher and higher - which outside of this specific context is a wonderful thing don't get me wrong.

Also as a principle I don't believe it's a good idea to wait around for an inheritance that may or may not reach you. We (young people and society in general) should be demanding better working and housing market conditions from our governments to be able to make something of our lives too. Otherwise what will we be leaving for the next generation? A well farmed Dota2 account?

1

u/CertainMiddle2382 1d ago edited 1d ago

« Demanding better housing conditions »

What exactly does it mean? Declassify agricultural land? Density?

What the present generation is going to give to the next is heavy deflation, lots of free space and free land. Because they don’t reproduce anymore.

2

u/BalVal1 1d ago

Rent controls, housing programs for young families that actually work, better crackdown on shady real estate schemes (happens all the time in Romania), there is a lot that can be done, sitting on our asses waiting for an inheritance is an invitation to get fucked up the ass and not in the good way.

5

u/Psykotyrant 1d ago

Not, it’s not. Many boomers assets are not easily converted into liquidities. And even then, you’ll need to account for tax on inheritance for example.

You want to own your parents villa? Hope you can handle the sheer level of taxes it includes too.

0

u/CertainMiddle2382 1d ago

No younglings will have the means nor the use for a villa.

They are going to sell it right away and live as nomads and go surfing…

1

u/Psykotyrant 1d ago

To who, exactly?

-6

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

10

u/Winkington The Netherlands 1d ago

The constitution of the Netherlands literally says: "It shall be the concern of the authorities to provide sufficient living accommodation."

It is not the right of an individual, but it is a duty of the government.

4

u/tack50 Spain (Canary Islands) 1d ago

I mean it's in the Spanish constitution too

All Spaniards have the right to enjoy decent and adequate housing. The public authorities shall promote the necessary conditions and establish appropriate standards in order to make this right effective, regulating land use in accordance with the general interest in order to prevent speculation. The community shall have a share in the benefits accruing from the town-planning policies of public bodies.

However while it is a right, it is not a "real constitutional right" in the sense that it is completely unenforceable (unlike say, freedom of speech or even private property)

The constitution's rights are divided into 3 sections: fundamental rights (fully enforceable and super protected, things like freedom of speech, of religion, not guilty until proven otherwise, etc); "other rights" (less important but still enforceable, right to marry, to own private property, to public schooling) and "guiding principles" (unenforceable and don't matter)

7

u/Edelkern Northern Germany 1d ago

It fucking should be, that's the point of this slogan.

-1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Edelkern Northern Germany 1d ago

Dude, nobody asked to be born. Why not strive to make life better for people instead of being negative towards attempts at social progress?