‘Stop Worrying And Love The Bursting Bubble’
David Leonhardt writes at the New York Times. “You remember the great real estate crash of the 1990’s, don’t you? In New York, inflation-adjusted prices dropped almost a third in less than a decade. The fall was even worse in Los Angeles, and it wasn’t pretty in Boston, San Francisco or Washington, either. Thousands of families were forced into much smaller homes.”
“Large numbers of people did not lose their homes. If anything, the drop in prices allowed a lot of families to buy their first house or trade up to one that they never could have afforded in the 1980’s.”
“Now it looks as if we might be about to go through it all again. But instead of panicking, most homeowners should be taking a deep breath. The real estate slump of 2006 offers a fresh chance to puncture the No. 1 myth about the nation’s No. 1 topic of conversation: the idea that we should all be rooting for high house prices. The myth is good for real estate agents, but it creates needless anxiety for everyone else. It’s time that most of us learned to stop worrying and love the bursting bubble.”
“‘Even in the most vulnerable markets, most people just have to look through it and ignore it,’ said (economist) Mark Zandi, ‘because it’s of very little relevance to them.’”
“That’s the good news. The bad news is that a big part of the country’s economic policy has been built on the myth. As long as you are living in the house, you have no way to lock in your gains. Yes, you can borrow against those gains, but new debt is not exactly found money. And when you move, odds are that you will go someplace that has a real estate market very much like yours. Whatever profit you make you will just plow back into a new home.”
“This is why the housing boom of the last decade has not made many people rich. Do you know anyone who retired at age 35 after selling her condo in San Francisco?”
“Obviously, there are exceptions; people who do have a very real stake in the short-term value of their house. Worst off would be the families who have borrowed heavily against their homes. For them, a price drop could erase all of their equity, leaving them with no money for a down payment when they move.”
“But the victims of a moderate price decline don’t come close to making up a majority of Americans. At most, 10 percent of households are so leveraged that their mortgage debt equals at least nine-tenths of their home’s value, Mr. Zandi said. Compare this with the more than 30 percent of families that don’t own a home and clearly have nothing to gain from further price increases.”
“So there is a good argument that society has a compelling interest in keeping house prices from getting too high. Reasonable prices allow young, middle-class families to buy a house without going into too much debt. They also let people live where they want. Right now, there are a growing number of workers making long commutes, solely because they cannot afford a decent-size house in a close-in suburb.”
“They can blame our tax policy for part of their plight. It pushes up home prices by handing out $80 billion a year in subsidies for home ownership, mainly through the mortgage interest deduction. There really is no sound argument in favor of it. It overwhelmingly benefits well-off families who would buy a home even if it didn’t exist. About 70 percent of tax filers get nothing from the deduction, in large part because many don’t make enough money to itemize their tax returns.”
“In fact, a tax panel appointed by President Bush recently called for the mortgage deduction to be replaced by a smaller and fairer tax break. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush seems more inclined to listen to the National Association of Realtors, which has warned that reducing the mortgage deduction would surely cause house prices to fall. To which the rest of us should say: And what’s so bad about that?”