[HN Gopher] The Portuguese can no longer afford to live in Portugal ___________________________________________________________________ The Portuguese can no longer afford to live in Portugal Author : nateb2022 Score : 260 points Date : 2022-09-01 15:09 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (medium.com) (TXT) w3m dump (medium.com) | marcodiego wrote: | One of my students got a job offer in Portugal before the | pandemic. He personally came to thank me for being his teacher; | he is a good, dedicated student. | | Pandemic came, he stayed in Brazil doing remote work. Found him a | few days ago. He told me he gave up going to Portugal and decided | to stay in Brazil for now mostly because cost of living there. | His initial salary would be 1.6K euros. | marcodiego wrote: | For people asking about the salary: yes it is per month. Also | compare it to Brazilian reality: median programmer salary here | is, according to a quick google search: "The estimated salary | for a computer programmer is $62,420 per year in Brazil, IN.", | which comes to around 10-12K euros a year. My experience when I | was a developer is really around that value. Getting 1.6K euros | a month is a VERY good initial salary in Brazil, specially if | you live in low cost of living areas like Northeastern | backlands. | mikestew wrote: | _" The estimated salary for a computer programmer is $62,420 | per year in Brazil, IN."_ | | As sibling has stated, Brazil (properly pronounced "BRAY- | zil") is a small town in the U. S. state of Indiana. What | amazes me though, as one that grew up probably 20 miles from | the town, is that anyone in Brazil, IN is paying $62K/year. | But it's been 30 years since I lived anywhere near there, | looks like it's grown a little. | brotherjerky wrote: | > The estimated salary for a computer programmer is $62,420 | per year in Brazil, IN | | Uh, this is almost certainly data for the US city of Brazil, | Indiana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil,_Indiana -- not | the country of Brazil | joshlemer wrote: | 1.6k euros per... month? | joao_lopes wrote: | Also, in Portugal you receive 14 months per year instead of | 12 (one extra on summer holiday and another on Christmas). | outworlder wrote: | Yeah. It's a decent salary for a junior, when converted to | BRL. Heck, even for senior positions outside tech. | rcarmo wrote: | Yeah, that would be the kind of money you'd get as a junior | "anything", even outside tech. | [deleted] | outworlder wrote: | The article seems odd and is all over the place. | | > The government has taken desirable measures for foreigners, | making it easier for them to get golden visas if someone invests | a certain amount of money. My husband, who works in real estate, | tells me countless stories of flats left uninhabited by some rich | person who arrived at the building, bought two flats so that he | could get a visa, and doesn't even live there. | | There are a bunch of restrictions on where and what types of | properties qualify. You can no longer buy property in large | cities and get the 'golden visa'. | | I do not think that is the main driver in large cities. _IF_ | these price hikes are indeed driven by foreigners, it 's probably | other European Union residents. | | > Nowadays, flats are being rented in Lisbon for four thousand | euros | | Yeap. Rented. So why did they bring up the visa thing? You can't | qualify if you rent. | | Also, housing prices have been increasing all around the globe at | the same time economies are screwed up and inflation is rampant | everywhere. Blaming foreigners seem... xenophobic? I didn't know | Portugal was like that. | | For starters, is there enough new construction to satisfy demand? | If not, there's the answer. | | > (...) And if Brazilians, who must be the largest source of | Portuguese immigration, move here | | Wait. I thought the problem was rich foreigners? There are rich | people in Brazil sure, but I seriously doubt their numbers would | even move the needle. The overwhelming majority of expats are | _not_ millionaires. If you are that rich, you can have a pretty | great quality of life and would only look to live in Portugal if | you were really into Europe or something like that. Rich | brazilians are more likely to want to have property in Miami. | | > The Portuguese are becoming, nothing more and nothing less, the | servants of big foreign millionaires | | Back to the foreign millionaire thing. | | Way back in 2012 I had the opportunity to live and work in | Europe. I considered Portugal, but while the country is amazing | and the food is good, the salaries were utterly terrible compared | to the neighboring countries. It seems that things have not | changed. | speeder wrote: | Indeed there is some weirdness in this article. | | For example, it claims Brazillians are going to Portugal in | large numbers because Bolsonaro... | | Except, Brazillians are going to Portugal in large numbers, | because the Portuguese government invited them, out of | necessity since the country is depopulated and has low birth | rates. | | I am one of the Brazilians that intend to move to Portugal, and | part of the reason is that I am not exactly Brazilian, yes I | was born in Brazil, but my family is from Portugal, and I was | raised with a Portuguese culture, I just don' t feel like | Brazil is my home and want to try going back to my family | hometown (Leiria) to see if it is a place that clicks with me. | | Lisbon and other metropolises indeed are bad, but because a | incredible amount of people want to live there despite lack of | enough land there. | klabb3 wrote: | > Lisbon and other metropolises indeed are bad, but because a | incredible amount of people want to live there despite lack | of enough land there. | | And infrastructure. Lisbon is incredibly dense, partly due to | its historical neighborhoods that's impenetrable by modern | surface traffic, and a subway network with insufficient reach | for a growing metropolis, resulting in everyone packing | themselves denser in the few desirable areas. | Patrol8394 wrote: | That's what happens when you incentivize wealthy people to move | in and buy houses in masses. Price rises and locals struggle. | Same happens when states competes to get the next big co HQ in | town. It's a double edged sword. | squarefoot wrote: | > flats with just two bedrooms going for more than half a million | euros in the centers of Lisbon or Oporto. | | How is that different from other places? Houses in the center of | big cities are always a lot more expensive than others far away | from it. Want a small one in the center of Rome? Here you are: | 27mq, 2nd floor and no elevator, no heating, no air conditioning, | abysmal energy efficiency, no kitchen, renovation needed, only | EUR600,000. What a bargain! | | https://www-tecnocasa-it.translate.goog/vendita/appartamenti... | | No thanks, I'll rather spend less than one third for the 7 times | bigger house I'll be soon relocating to. I lived most of my life | near the center of Rome; if you come as a tourist I concur it can | be a wonderful experience, but after decades of traffic, noise | and pollution, leaving for a much quieter and cleaner place with | plenty of space for my hobbies is the best thing I could do. And | it's also much cheaper. YMMV of course. | epolanski wrote: | I'm from Rome and your example is cherrypicked bs. | | Yes, very central touristic areas are expensive but half a | million can get you 3 room apartments you can go to center by | feet, even less would be enough. | | That's the price you would pay, e.g. in Ostiense. | immibis wrote: | It's not different. _Nobody_ can afford to live _anywhere_. | Which (when homelessness is illegal) means nobody can afford to | _live_. Market-enforced eugenics, if you will, selecting for | generational wealth rather than specific genetic markers. | tluyben2 wrote: | I bought a large house for peanuts this year in PT, just not in | Lisbon. Really about the cheapest m2 with land I could get in | Europe. Not everyone wants or needs to live in a city. | mtw wrote: | This is not just Portugal. I see similar sentiment in Canada | where young professionals in Vancouver or Toronto complain they | can't buy their first home and Vancouver has been "sold out" to | foreigners. Similar sentiment in Australian major cities as well. | dorchadas wrote: | Definitely the same sentiment in Dublin and Galway from my | experiences over here in Ireland too. Though mostly AirBnB | rather than golden visas. | paxys wrote: | I can't think of any major urban area in the world and any time | period in history where "housing is too expensive" hasn't been | the popular sentiment. | throwayyy479087 wrote: | In NYC in the 70s housing was literally free - Harlem | brownstones sold for a dollar. It hasn't always been this | way. | ttymck wrote: | This is interesting, because (at least in America) the | current rhetoric is that housing was laughably affordable up | until the 70s(?). | | Now, even in suburbs, housing is far more expensive than most | wage earners could expect to afford. | | Maybe we are thinking of two different sides of the same | coin, but I would genuinely be interested in reading articles | from the ~mid-century describing what you suggest. | buscoquadnary wrote: | The problem in the US is pretty obvious. We are the time | period where the largest generation of Americans (the | boomers) are at the retirement, or about to retire point, | at the same time the Zoomers, which are a decent sized | generation, are entering the housing market. | | Over the next several decades as the boomers die off or | move to retirement homes the housing supply will increase | substantially, and the value of properties in most of the | US will plummet. | nivenkos wrote: | Europe is facing complete economic collapse in the face of hyper- | inflation, energy shortages, the Euro collapsing in value and | rising interest rates. | | It's a shame that the continent that was once the birthplace of | democracy, the scientific method, the industrial revolution and | socialism has been reduced to nothing more than an open-air | museum for wealthy Americans and a refugee centre for the victims | of their wars. | | We need strong leaders who will put Europe first. | immibis wrote: | Last time Europe had "strong leaders who will put <country> | first" it did NOT end well. | elforce002 wrote: | So, they can't learn from their mistakes? | dougmwne wrote: | Sounds like the Portuguese government should start building flats | as fast as possible. Other countries in the EU do it and it | works. | tumetab1 wrote: | I doubt that even 30% of people would consider having | government as a landlord good alternative. There are so many | news of poor management that depending on the government to fix | your plumbing in your house seems like a nightmare scenario to | me. | dougmwne wrote: | This is actually a good role for government intervention. The | exact mechanism is not important, but the concept is. | Builders tend to be out of cycle with housing need due to the | length time it takes to get a project to completion. After a | bust, they get very skittish and underinvest for the first | half of the cycle creating a shortage and boom. Government | can provide a base level of housing builds to make sure the | market doesn't go too deep into shortage. And it doesn't have | to literally build them itself, just run programs that keep | building housing. Ideally it even pays for itself. | joaomval wrote: | We can't even afford to pay doctors to keep the urgencies open | cinntaile wrote: | What EU countries? The only ones I am familiar with have | housing prices spiraling out of control just like in Portugal. | dougmwne wrote: | I believe most EU countries do this in some form, but Austria | by far has the largest and most successful public housing | scheme. It is very effective at controlling prices. | Drunk_Engineer wrote: | Austria. In Vienna, for example, 44% of the rental stock is | public housing. | andrepd wrote: | Unfortunately in Portugal as in almost everywhere else the | government has little incentive to do so: as the ruling class | is comprised almost entirely of wealthier people with lots of | assets, they (1) don't suffer from the insane housing prices | and (2) indeed as proprietors _benefit_ from the surge in | housing asset prices. | dougmwne wrote: | Sure that is a headwind, but it's certainly not impossible to | get your government to work for you instead of against you. | While there are many examples of hopelessly corrupt, | democracy-in-name-only governments, there are also | governments that respond to the needs of the majority to keep | from getting thrown out in the next elections. | | Generally, having all these big money foreigners trying to | come to your country is a good thing. It sure beats having no | industry and you can crank up the tax heat on them as high as | you want since nonresident-noncitizens don't vote. The real | problem is that the Portuguese government is not being made | to share the bounty of a few winners with the rest of the | population, who are instead left to just deal with the | externalities. | | There is another path that does not involve locking the doors | and hanging up a "closed for business" sign. | andrepd wrote: | As a relatively poor country (for European standards) with, | crucially, _a lot of debt_ , it is very difficult to go for | massive public spending projects as would be construction | of enough public housing to bring it to the aforementioned | 20% goal (there are actually proposals to this effect in | Parliament), even though this would (1) help control the | housing crisis and (2) actually easily turn up a profit in | the mid-long run. | | The EU could change all of this and go for true European | cohesion with Eurobonds under the blue/red proposal... but | that's another story ;) | | > Generally, having all these big money foreigners trying | to come to your country is a good thing. It sure beats | having no industry and you can crank up the tax heat on | them as high as you want since nonresident-noncitizens | don't vote. | | Well but do they? Where is the evidence that golden- | visa/NHR recipients have actually helped create jobs, | invest, create industry...? In fact, there appears to be | evidence to the contrary: | https://www.publico.pt/2021/12/25/economia/noticia/vistos- | go... (translated: "Golden visa: in nine years, the program | created 241 new jobs. Investments which led to the | residency permits since 2012 amount to 6000 million euro, | the vast majority of which went to real estate") | dougmwne wrote: | To your second point, that's a policy problem. You can | tax these golden visa real estate investors at any rate. | You can have a different tax rate for nonresidents and an | extremely high rate to penalize non-occupancy. | | The country might be poor and in debt overall, but | somebody is getting rich off this real estate bubble and | it is within the government's power to make them share. | tejohnso wrote: | As long as governments continue to allow housing to be treated | primarily as an asset, then housing is going to be subject to | asset inflation. | | The investor class inflates the value of the assets, meanwhile | the working class are just struggling for a place to live. | al_mandi wrote: | This is the natural outcome of bad economic policies. The world | today runs on interest and usury, things that prohibited in the | three major religions of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Yet, | people refuse to learn. | madaxe_again wrote: | There's much truth here, but it isn't the entire picture. | | Lisboa and Oporto are _hideously_ overpriced, and it is indeed | hard to see how a normal Portuguese earner can afford to live in | either. Even Vila Nova de Gaia, which was the "cheap" side of | Oporto, is now parlously expensive. | | This effect has bled along the coast, and many coastal villages | now ask EUR200k for an unmodernised one bedroom house. | | But... the interior of the country is still facing depopulation, | and property prices and rents here (between Braganca and Miranda) | are still low. A five bedroom house in a town in decent condition | can be had for EUR100k. There's a beautiful 16th c. T8 palazzo | needing modernisation in our nearest town for EUR80k. | | People don't earn much here, but they don't spend much, either - | a lot of food is home grown or hunted and bartered, heating is | from firewood, and most folks drive perhaps 50km in a week, as | they live within walking distance of where they work. Almost | every house that's had modernisation done uses solar for hot | water and to supplement power. They deployed a gas network four | years ago, and shuttered it last, as nobody is using it. Property | taxes on the above properties are about EUR100 a year. | | They're desperate for people to move out here - lots of | vacancies, not enough people to fill them. They've rolled out | gigabit fibre to the villages, which they are literally giving | away. We're the only estrangeiros in the county, bar returning | Brasileiros. | | So. The reality is that which is being played out all over the | world. Cities are becoming unaffordable for mere mortals - and, | in my view, that's ok, as cities are past their useful life as | industrial hubs and have principally become destinations and | speculative investments. | | I'm not advocating some sort of "return to the land", but rather | that people are going to have to consider that perhaps they don't | all have to live in the top 5 cities in their country. | | Sure, I can't get takeout here, but I can breathe fresh air, sit | at a quiet cafe and chat with my friends in the village without | enduring traffic whilst drinking my EUR0.60 coffee, and support | local businesses run by local people, rather than vast corporate | chains. | | Since we've moved here, particularly during the pandemic, we have | seen quite a few young Portuguese couples move here from Oporto - | some with family ties, some without - they're starting | businesses, families, renovating old abandoned homes. It's | genuinely exciting to see the beginning of something. | | The pendulum swings, the market speaks, the world turns. Sure, we | may be facing down collapse - of the current way of doing things. | Not of all things. | | Edit: just to demonstrate the veracity of my statements re | property prices here: https://www.idealista.pt/comprar- | casas/braganca/vimioso/vimi... | dsego wrote: | It's not just takeout, it's hospital services, repair, | dentists, big specialty stores, cinemas, concert venues, day | care & after-school activities and so on. | ahepp wrote: | > people are going to have to consider that perhaps they don't | all have to live in the top 5 cities in their country. | | I think it's an interesting question: why are there only a | handful of "top" cities? What can we do to make cities that | aren't desirable, more desirable? | zelphirkalt wrote: | > This effect has bled along the coast, and many coastal | villages now ask EUR200k for an unmodernised one bedroom house. | | Well, compared to capitals in some countries in Europe, that is | still cheap! Try half a million for a completely empty run-down | flat. | toomuchtodo wrote: | This is what attracted us to plan to move to Portugal. I could | get something similar (from a geography/density perspective) in | the rural US, but the people, cultural, amenities, and costs | would not be what you described. | | When I transition from tech, I hope to spend my time building | affordable housing in Portugal and Spain. | andrepd wrote: | Well the problem is (1) jobs and (2) many people simply don't | want to live in a town with 1000 people and nothing to do. | | (1) Bar agriculture and remote work, there are very few jobs in | the interior of the country. I think in this forum we may have | a skewed perspective since our sector is by far the one where | remote work is most common. But most people simply don't have | the option to earn 10x minimum wage from their computer while | sitting in an idyllic mountainside village. | | (2) Many people like living in rural areas. That's great! But | many people also do not. I like nature walks and mountain | biking and clean air as much as the other guy, but I also like | restaurants and classical music concerts and nights out. I sort | of have that right now by living in a rural area 10m away from | a mid-sized (150k pop) town, but I don't think I would like | very much to live in the middle of Tras-os-Montes for more than | a few months. | madaxe_again wrote: | There's more work than you might think - there's a perpetual | shortage of white collar professionals here, from doctors to | accountants to insurance agents. The ones who are here are | perpetually oversubscribed, and are hiring. There's also an | absolute dearth of trades - there is one electrician, two | builders, two plumbers, covering a huge area, with a three | year waiting list. The younger couples I mentioned who have | moved here typically have one working remote, the other | starting a business... and then the remote worker stopping | that to work on their partner's business which is suddenly | growing out of control. That's not even considering things | like ecotourism, the europa grants available for doing pretty | much _anything_ here, and public sector jobs, which they are | filling with literally anyone who applies. | | There's also the whole virtuous cycle thing - more people | move here, bring more commerce, more demand, secondary and | tertiary industries develop. | | I hear you on lifestyle, however - this wouldn't have been | for me when I was in my 20's, but at nearly 40, and finally | wanting to start a family, it's ideal - and many of the | younger folks moving here are in the same boat. | | That said, there are restaurants, some really good, and | transport around here has improved such that Braganca is only | 30 minutes from Vimioso now, rather than 1hr+ it was 10 years | ago, and it has all the amenities of a secondary city. Oh, | and we had an excellent concert a few weeks ago - after the | bullfighting. But I agree, it isn't for everyone - but it's | perhaps for more people than might realise it. | pelasaco wrote: | The issue is that the Government should bring the | infrastructure to the outback, as other European countries | do. In another hand, I love the almost rustic Alentejo.. I | guess having unstable regions like South America, Asia, | Middle east and Africa is one factor, among other factors | already described in this thread, raising housing prices... | outworlder wrote: | > But... the interior of the country is still facing | depopulation, and property prices and rents here (between | Braganca and Miranda) are still low. A five bedroom house in a | town in decent condition can be had for EUR100k. There's a | beautiful 16th c. T8 palazzo needing modernisation in our | nearest town for EUR80k. | | That's exactly what I saw when I was looking at properties | there. And honestly the towns where some of the cheap | properties were, were not half bad. They looked like they had | all necessary amenities. I can't speak for their job markets | though, which could be the main reason for the issue. | zozbot234 wrote: | > But... the interior of the country is still facing | depopulation, and property prices and rents here are still low. | | Some people just don't think very highly of "flyover country". | The culture is not what they're used to. Return to the land | makes a whole lot of sense though, now that the basic | infrastructure for hybrid remote working is pretty much | ubiquitous (courtesy of COVID). | buscoquadnary wrote: | That's one of the things that always bothered me about cost of | living arguments it always seems to be it's to expensive to | live anywhere (inside of these several highly desirable | locations that I want to live exclusively and are very | expensive.) There are plenty of places to live and plenty of | housing, just not where people want to be. | aprdm wrote: | Maybe it's just a matter of time? In Canada even the small | cities got unaffordable , mainly after COVID started. With the | interest rate raise a lot of people are hoping for a crash, | some banks are saying it will be up to this 20-40% in some | cities. Hopefully that helps. There's no where livable in | Canada that is affordable to have a house right now. | jersak wrote: | Not gonna lie, im considering moving from BC to a farm in NS. | With the mortgage i have on a 2 bdr apartment in the lower | mainland i can buy up to 3 farms in NS, which is comically | sad. | zelphirkalt wrote: | Side fact, not really criticism: When I see abbreviations | for US states, my brain starts inserting anything that | comes to mind and is a location. In this case: | | "BC? British Columbia? NS? New Jersey, no that's not with | an 's' ... Arg, no idea!" | | It is not mandatory for me to understand all the | abbreviations. Just that sometimes I would like to | understand more, without having to guess states. | hydrok9 wrote: | but, BC and NS are of course Canadian provinces, not US | states ;) | rr888 wrote: | Its a global problem that interest rates have been too low for | too long. Most Americans dont realize that in most countries, | house prices continued to go up through the 08-10 recession, so | haven't gone down since the early 90s. Property needs a big | global crash. | al_mandi wrote: | The interest is the cause of the problem in the first place. | We've known for thousands of years that usury is bad, it's | prohibited in the three major religions, and for good reason. | | We see it time and time again. Policy makers try to address the | symptom but not the cause, then people cry when nothing gets | fixed. | rr888 wrote: | You might be right. I assume lending as a regular part of the | economy but my grandparents lived in a world where it was | very difficult, even for a mortgage. I can't see any real | benefit of credit cards, payday lenders. | commandlinefan wrote: | But if it's a global problem... where are all these rich people | coming from? Even if the richest 10% of the global population | were going around buying three houses a piece, that would still | leave 70% of the housing market left over for us plebs. | rr888 wrote: | Its not rich people its middle class people with 500k | mortgages that no one would take if rates were 5%. US rates | have come back up, Europe is slowly started too but full | impact isn't yet felt. | | https://www.euribor-rates.eu/en/current-euribor- | rates/4/euri... | hnuser847 wrote: | Thank you for mentioning interest rates. Any time housing comes | up on HN, the main factors people bring up are short-term | rentals, NIMBYism, and lack of new development. However, if | these explanations had any merit, why have home values in | Flint, MI increased by 67% since March of 2020? | | Flint's population has rapidly declined over the past 40 years | and continues to decline (its population is less than half of | what it was at its peak), so there's not a population boom | driving up demand. Flint is not exactly known as a tourist | destination either. And to top off, Flint is most well known | for its contaminated drinking water that contains lead. So why | on Earth would such a place be experiencing a housing shortage? | | The obvious answer is that governments around the world have | brought interests rate down to zero, which forces investors to | seek out riskier and riskier assets to invest in. Instead of | investing in traditionally safe assets like treasuries and | bonds, investors now have no choice but to invest in stuff like | tech startups, cryptocurrencies, personal loans, mortgage- | backed securities, and dilapidated houses in the Midwest. | rr888 wrote: | And the biggest reason people buy housing is that its been | the best investment. The wealthiest people I know are the | people that bought houses a long time back and kept | leveraging up into buying more. | pharmakom wrote: | Equities have a higher return historically. Housing is | interesting though because mortgages offer huge leverage to | retail investors. | hnuser847 wrote: | That's the path I'm on right now, not because I love being | a landlord, but simply because it's the best investment | available. | megalord wrote: | And that's exactly why are houses so damn expensive all | over the world. Boom | sriram_sun wrote: | Tokyo seems to have solved this by building houses and | transportation right? What's preventing other governments from | duplicating this? Politics? If so what was unique about Tokyo? | bobthepanda wrote: | * transportation: the outlays of programs like Five Commuting | directions in Tokyo was a direct contributor to the collapse of | JNR, which led to the government assuming all JNR debt and | privatizing the railways as JR Group | | * housing production in Tokyo is great, but to put this in | context today's Japanese housing market essentially happened | after the bubble pop in the '90s. Prices from 1991 to 2004 had | declined by 64% due to the pop. In that context, deregulation | was palatable because people were already underwater and didn't | bother as much to fight things that would lower property | values. (In fact, it could've raised them.) | kranke155 wrote: | Tokyo also bans Airbnb, period. Something most people here | don't understand. | Proven wrote: | wtcactus wrote: | Portuguese here. | | I think this title is a bit sensationalist. It's true that a | middle class Portuguese, with the extremely heavy income/property | taxes we have to pay, will find it very difficult to live in | Lisbon's or Porto's city center in a medium-upper apartment. | | Lisbon (and even more Porto) do have an extensive metro line | though, and you can rent/buy an apartment on the outskirts | (although still served by metro line), even with the low liquid | wages. But more than that, vast areas of the country are | extremely deserted and housing is extremely cheap there (a | similar house in the interior goes for about 20% of one in | Lisbon/Porto). | | Also, there's the problem of the government having destroyed most | of the middle class to embezzle the metric of the "minimum wage". | Constant mandates to increase the minimum wage (and very heavy | taxes on anyone that earns more than that), make so that | companies can't discriminate between good and bad workers. Most | workers get paid almost the same, and as such, there's no point | in trying to be a better worker. | | I'm one of the "lucky ones" because I bring home about | EUR2000/month. My company has a total cost with my salary after | taxes and other state contributions of EUR3880/month. | | Now, I know that you can have the argument that we get a lot of | "free" services in return, but, sadly, no, we don't. Decades old | mismanagement (governments use these "free" services to cater to | their party members and get them nice administration positions | for which they don't have any experience) and some outright | corruption, destroyed the quality of most of these "free" | services. | | The SNS is in absolute shambles. Our mortality rate is the | highest since 1913 (ok, you can attribute that COVID). Our infant | mortality rate, the highest since 1982 (sorry, but you can't say | this one is due to COVID). Now, what happened to cause this? 7 | years ago, we got a center-left government into power, one of | their first measures was to destroy a system where the hospitals | were public, but the management was done by a private company - | these hospitals had much better metrics for both costs and | quality of service. They abolished that, and replaced the | hospitals' administration by party members. This is the result. | | Like it happened with the SNS, similar stuff happened in a lot of | other areas. In the end, the government's answer is always the | same: increase taxes - which strangulates the economy and | destroys the middle class, and, funnily enough, transforms us all | into people dependent on "government's money" and their subsidies | - that ensures that they keep in power because nobody can imagine | living without those "free" services with the low liquid wages we | have. | klabb3 wrote: | > Decades old mismanagement (governments use these "free" | services to cater to their party members and get them nice | administration positions for which they don't have any | experience) and some outright corruption, destroyed the quality | of most of these "free" services. | | Tangential, but I recently visited lisbon and realized how | terribly mismanaged the airport is, as well as TAP Air | (Portugal's flag airline). Everything should be well, because | it's a pretty big airport but yet it was a mess, and delays of | several hours was apparently an every day experience (which I | learnt the hard way). It did give the impression of having root | causes in corruption and complete mismanagement of public | funds. | sanedigital wrote: | We lived in Spain for 4 years and Portugal for 1. I love the | country and the people, but from a management perspective, | the place is a disaster. It made Spain feel like some sort of | futuristic perfect society managed by hyper-efficient AI by | comparison (and that's saying something). | petre wrote: | Sounds almost exactly like Eastern Europe, only without the | Brazilians who speak Portugese, are Catholics and also work for | lower income. | outworlder wrote: | > But more than that, vast areas of the country are extremely | deserted and housing is extremely cheap there (a similar house | in the interior goes for about 20% of one in Lisbon/Porto). | | Yeah. Given that the large cities no longer qualify for 'golden | visas', I think the government wants external money to go to | these areas. | | > Decades old mismanagement | | That's quite sad to hear. | | I was (guess I still am) thinking about moving to Portugal at | some point, perhaps for retirement. Every single person I have | ever spoken to... they can only sing praises to Portugal. Sure, | sometimes they complain about bureaucracy. That's probably | worrying, since most are brazilians and we supposedly used to | that. If they complain, that must be bad :) | | I really hope Portugal will get better. | jmyeet wrote: | The answer, as always when it comes to housing issues in Portugal | or anywhere else, is to treat this as a supply side problem. | | Portugal has an influx of foreign funds through Golden Visa and | similar programs. It should take that money and build social | housing that is, at least at first, only open to Portuguese | citizens. Think Vienna. | | In areas where building is a problem, just use funds to buy | properties and turn them into social housing. | | I don't know what restrictions there are on foreign real estate | purchases. Personally I have no issue with owner occupiers. But | any "investors" (including AirBnBs) should be made illegal or | simply taxed into oblivion. | slaw wrote: | Inflation in Portugal is 9%, Euribor interest rate used to | calculate mortgage is 1.483%. Housing is where you park money. | 4gotunameagain wrote: | what a smart and filled with empathy comment for an article | about people being pushed out of their hometowns. | slaw wrote: | I am only stating facts not the one who is printing money and | pushing people out of their hometowns. | z9znz wrote: | I sit reading this in a village in central Portugal, and I have a | very different perspective than the OP. | | What I see are vast numbers of uninhabited, decaying or wholly | uninhabitable structures. I see 50+ age men loitering around the | town, drinking beer at 10am, and playing scratch-offs. | | On the roads I see absolutely bonkers drivers who have old cars | which obviously have binary gas pedals. They go super slow for no | reason, but at some point they flip the switch and drive like | maniacs, blind curves be damned. These cars, by the way, are 80s | and 90s soot-spewing diesels. | | They start fires more often than mother nature does. Sometimes | it's because they are crazy, but usually it's because they want | to clear a natural forest so they can grow fast timber like | eucalyptus (which greatly exacerbates the fire risk since they | are so grow fast and are highly flammable). | | VAT here is 23%. This thing about foreigners not paying tax is | bs. Locals widely use a tax scheme whereby they can make tax | claims on their purchases, getting some of it back. Without that | tax number, you pay the full 23%. | | And if you want to use a visa to live and work here, you will pay | an incredible tax rate that's even higher than Netherlands (which | is already 20-50% higher than the US). | | Many of the "rich" foreigners coming in and buying property are | Brazilians, some of whom got their riches through corruption or | outright criminal activities. | | There is also still good old fashioned corruption here. The laws | regarding many topics such as land habitation permits vary by | jurisdiction, and the common way to deal with them is to get cozy | with the mayor or other important figures. Take them to dinner, | buy them some gifts, play nice. You can be completely legal, but | if you don't play the game right you can be denied a permit. | | This is all pretty bad news, but that's not to say that Portugal | is bad or Portuguese are bad. There's a lot to like here. There's | a lot of charm, a lot of history, some great beaches and villages | and mountainous areas. The climate can be nice, but imo it's not | great and rapidly getting worse (many days this summer over 40C, | and so, so many fires). | | My takeaway is, to put it very bluntly, that the average | Portuguese person is quite ignorant. They either don't know a lot | of important things, or they know a bit but don't care (because | they don't know why it's important). It feels like time stopped | here in the mid 1900s. | | Porgugal was once the king of the world. Then it had a several | hundred year decline, reaching bottom in the latter 1900s. The | younger generation learned it was better to move elsewhere to | earn money, so progress ceased locally. But 10 years or so ago, | the younger people who are now middle age began coming back, | starting businesses, and revitalizing the country. It's going to | take a few more decades before Portugal reaches the point where | it is not a poor shadow of its former self. I'm not sure it will | ever make it though. | bogomipz wrote: | >"And if you want to use a visa to live and work here, you will | pay an incredible tax rate that's even higher than Netherlands | (which is already 20-50% higher than the US)." | | Is this the catch then with those "golden visas"? Could you or | someone else say what those rates are? Is Spain which also | offers "golden visas" the same then in terms of a separate tax? | rlf_dev wrote: | "My takeaway is, to put it very bluntly, that the average | Portuguese person is quite ignorant. They either don't know a | lot of important things, or they know a bit but don't care | (because they don't know why it's important). It feels like | time stopped here in the mid 1900s." | | This is quite true, we are ranked very low on things like | financial literacy, and most people here don't care why things | are the way they are. | s09dfhks wrote: | Seems fitting that this post and this other one, | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32682862, are right next to | one another on my feed | hepinhei wrote: | What this article does not say is that the prime Minister has 6 | houses... So he is benefiting from this | (https://www.cmjornal.pt/politica/detalhe/antonio-costa-tem-c...) | | We are living more and more in a world where people work but are | not able to live with dignity | amelius wrote: | And also in a world where bricks make more money than honest | hard work. | indiantinker wrote: | Even us madrilenos (Madrid people) cannot. Our salaries and | taxation cannot match the "invisible" renters driving up the | housing market. Saying this as I pack my stuff to move outside | the city. | moltar wrote: | I can't think of any major and attractive city in the world where | majority of locals could afford to buy. | | I think Portugal was just late to the game, but the playbook is | the same. | | All major cities in Canada, NYC, London, Hanoi, Bangkok, | Naypyidaw, and so on and on. | | Every nice city is extremely overvalued. | kaashif wrote: | This article makes me realise how fortunate I am to be the | children of immigrants. My parents are very family oriented and | were somewhat upset when I left my home country (which isn't my | parents' original home country) for greener pastures, but if | there's one thing immigrants understand, it's that if things are | hard, you should move to where things aren't hard! | | I'm sure the author has their reasons or whatever, but when they | make statements like this: | | > It's not easy for anyone to emigrate, to have to deal with and | to submited themselves to another culturee. It's all hard, but to | live away from those we love the most its the hardest. | | It's just incredible to me that someone would act against their | own economic interests so blatantly. The greatest innovation of | the EU is free movement, and this person is unwilling to take | advantage of it to escape economic hardship. | | Obviously my mindset and the author's mindset have irreconcilable | differences. | | I think how the author keeps using "foreign" as an insult reveals | something about their thought process: | | > policies that benefit foreigners more than their residents. | | > the majority are foreigners who are not there for a visit, but | who live there. | | > large public companies were sold off to Chinese managers who | now do whatever they want | | > The Portuguese are becoming, nothing more and nothing less, the | servants of big foreign millionaires | gr1zzlybe4r wrote: | What countries aren't struggling with this sort of dynamic? | | I almost think that the US is doing pretty well with this in the | sense that you can still move somewhere that's cheap relative to | your salary, but that only holds true if you're able to do it | with remote work. So, maybe it's not true at all. | davidw wrote: | The US is pretty bad from this point of view from what I | recall, compared to other places where it's generally legal to | build a broader variety of housing in cities. But perhaps it | just got bad here early compared to other places. | | Portugal's demographics, like much of western Europe, didn't | look like they were going to change dramatically: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Portugal - so | getting set up to build a bunch probably wasn't a priority. | | It looks like immigration picked up a lot, and also there has | been an influx of wealthier immigrants. | | It will be interesting to see how they handle it. Having people | with money move to your country ought to be a positive thing, | but you need to build housing for them so they're not competing | with locals - and winning. | bombcar wrote: | The US is pretty bad if you force yourself to remain in the | same area (which, to be fair, most people do). | | But the US is large and there are places where housing really | isn't the issue (but there can be other issues, too). | gr1zzlybe4r wrote: | That's kinda what I was saying | | The US has places that you can live cheaply if you're able | to arbitrage a remote job. It doesn't look as good if | you're not able to work remote. | davidw wrote: | That's changing quickly though. Most of the cheaper places | did 'cheap' via sprawl, and that's kind of low hanging | fruit that you need to move beyond in terms of housing | options, sooner or later. | | https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/housing- | cr... | bombcar wrote: | Combining increased demand with reduced supply has caused | a huge "pig in a snake" scenario, which is going to | readjust suddenly (arguably it already has around here) | where built supply is starting to outstrip demand. | happyopossum wrote: | > The US is pretty bad from this point of view from what I | recall, compared to other places where it's generally legal | to build a broader variety of housing in cities. | | It's really impossible to make generalizations about the | legalities go building in the US, as there is no federal | control over such things. There are some state-level laws in | some states, but for the most part zoning is left up to | cities and counties, leading to literally thousands of | disparate sets of laws and regulations. | | My city has historically heavily restricted high density | housing (until the state stepped in), while the city | literally next door has added enough high density housing for | ~20k people in the past decade. | davidw wrote: | People study this stuff and have written about it | extensively. By and large, in most US cities and towns, | it's not legal to build anything but detached single family | units in most of the city. So while each locale may have | its own zoning code, they're rarely all that unique. There | are some exceptions like Houston. | | This is an interesting book about the history of it all: ht | tps://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801479878/zone. | .. | eitally wrote: | I don't think the US is doing a good job of this at all. | There's a huge amount of policy-driven gate-keeping that's both | ejecting lower income residents from tier 1 & 2 cities [due | mostly to cost pressures], and preventing significant | infrastructure projects that would ameliorate some of the | increasingly pressurized (and politicized) demand signals | (better public transport, more lower income housing, | improvements in public education - infrastructure & programs). | googlryas wrote: | Isn't it more accurate to say the Portuguese can no longer afford | to live in Lisbon(or Porto, or some other desirable city)? | | If you have a city with X housing units, but 5X people from | within the city + all over the country/world want to live there, | and for whatever reason no one wants to/can build 4X more housing | units, how do you fairly determine who gets to live there and who | doesn't? | | * Is it fair if you were born in Lisbon you get to keep living in | Lisbon? | | * Is it fair if people early in their career get to live in | Lisbon because it will advance their career much more than if | they lived in the countryside? | | * Is it fair if a rich person gets to live there because they can | pay a lot of money to do so? | | Whatever policy is in place, it will be deciding the winners and | the losers, or the people who get to live in Lisbon and those who | don't. | kaashif wrote: | Using a word as subjective as "fair" allows for people to | propose solutions you don't agree with, but that they think are | fair. | | The author of the article says: | | > Digital nomads, retired foreigners, and millionaires | searching for Gold visas are pushing the Portuguese to another | place. | | > Is this really that fair? | | We are obviously supposed to say "no", but I think the answer | is yes. I really hate this form of argument by rhetorical | question that only works if you _already_ agree with the | author, if my answers are different the whole article just | doesn't work. | hahaxdxd123 wrote: | https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Everybod... | | If you live in any society where land values are private profit, | expect nothing less. | | We're seeing this in America too, but hopefully with any luck, we | still have enough entrepreneurial inertia that salaries (mine | especially) remain high enough for a little while longer to make | this palatable. | bieh wrote: | I moved to Lisbon in 2020, and I've become increasingly aware of | the impact that high-income remote-worker immigrants like me are | having on the city, and other similar places. I've been thinking | of building something to try and help: | | https://www.reddit.com/r/PortugalExpats/comments/vy0i5r/crit... | | It's proved... controversial! I'd be interested to get HNs take. | spaniard89277 wrote: | You can't solve the issue unless you build (much) more housing. | An app to donating to charity is like nothing. You have good | intentions but it is what it is. | | And even if you build housing, you somehow need to reduce the | induced demand. | ahepp wrote: | I think it puts a pretty negative framing on immigration, that | it's something you have to buy an indulgence for. Maybe that's | true. Being a well paid tech worker who might try the expat | lifestyle someday, I'm pretty biased. But I also wonder what it | might look like to frame things in a more positive light. Maybe | that could be connecting immigrants to jobs making a productive | impact in the local economy, or showcasing local investment | opportunities. Just from a pragmatic perspective, I feel like | this kind of positive framing is more likely to get engagement. | People get very defensive, very fast, if you make them feel as | if they've done something wrong (even if they have). | TremendousJudge wrote: | Cry me a river. The Portuguese never even apologized for what | they did to Angolans and Mozambicans. In fact, they have great | monuments in their cities dedicated to their "Guerra do | Ultramar". I find it hard to feel for them. | rcarmo wrote: | Actually, that is something many middle-aged Portuguese are | keenly aware of. Either because they lost relatives in that war | or because they are still trying to figure out how to cope with | the mistakes of that generation (most people who lived through | that are gone - and so are their worldviews - so I don't see | any point in demonizing the dead). | zelphirkalt wrote: | And what does some historical injustice have to do with | ordinary people being pushed out of their homes? Maybe you | could try to not put them all in one caste and judge them all | as a single entity? | | Really, it is not appropriate to wish them all suffering, | because of some historical fact, which they most like did not | have a hand in. A little empathy seems appropriate. Maybe with | more empathy in the world, we would also see some more | apologies for historical injustices. | outworlder wrote: | They did a mess in Brazil too. Extracted what they could, be it | wood or gold and everything in between. Gold in particular was | a pretty good shakedown. We learned about all the B.S. at | school. | | I am Brazilian. I do not blame the current Portuguese people. | Heck, I don't even blame the Portuguese back then, just their | government. I want Portugal to prosper. | | Asking for an official apology is fine. Blaming ordinary people | who are just trying to live their lives, is not fine. | Apocryphon wrote: | Ironically, many Portuguese have moved to Angola since the | Great Recession. | subsubzero wrote: | This sounds like what happened in the SFbay area(south | bay/pennisula), I grew up there and it used to be a great place | to live, center left politics, lots of families and a diverse set | of industries with many middle class opportunities. right around | 10-15 years ago things started to change dramatically for the | worse, housing and costs everywhere skyrocketed, homeless | population exploded, politics veered hard left. Most of my | friends from high school(90%) were forced to leave due to rents | going from $1k a month to $3k a month for a 1-2 bdrm apts. Those | that owned houses also moved as they were fed up with crime and | could get a way better house somewhere else. Middle class jobs | all disappeared from the area, families also left, the | neighborhoods I lived in San Jose (rose garden/willow glen) had | barely any kids for my daughter to play with as there were no | families anymore, the rose garden neighborhood had 0 kids on the | street, the willow glen neighborhood had 1 family w/ kids who | moved away during the pandemic. | | I was lucky and making really good money in tech but was | devastated by how the area I grew up in had turned into a | nightmare and everyone I know (even family) leaving the area. I | too ended leaving as the cost vs. quality of life didn't make any | sense and I couldn't see my family living in a place I didn't | even recognize anymore. Most people don't talk about it but there | is a huge diaspora of bay area residents due to the stuff | mentioned above and it breaks my heart to think we will most | likely never return and familiy/friends I expected to spend the | rest of my life with all leaving. | standyro wrote: | I'm curious, where did you leave to, if I can ask? | [deleted] | orthoxerox wrote: | > Those that owned houses also moved as they were fed up with | crime and could get a way better house somewhere else. | | How do the criminals afford to live in the area? | koboll wrote: | Well, there are two classes of criminal. | | The petty crimes are committed by a small but very vocal | minority of homeless people who are severely mentally ill | and/or severely addicted to meth/opiates. They can afford to | live here because everyone has apparently decided the most | humane thing to do is to look the other way while they | struggle, freeze, and eventually overdose and die on the | street. | | The larger-scale thefts are committed by organized crime | operations that essentially operate a business of stealing | and reselling stuff because of notoriously lax law | enforcement. Think the opening scene of Requiem for a Dream, | except an entire crew doing that, over and over and over. | They make a lot of money doing this -- and drive up the cost | of basic essentials for other working class people who have | to buy what they resell because they clear drugstores out. | They make enough to live comfortably, despite the high cost | of living, apparently. | bagacrap wrote: | and the only reason they could get a way better house | somewhere else is bc their own home greatly appreciated in | value... so let's not paint homeowners as victims here | FerociousTimes wrote: | I totally understand your pain in seeing your hometown turning | into a hellish zone but I can't pass on calling the irony in | your story since these same Cali exiles are one of the | principal factors in pricing ordinary locals in Portugal out of | their neighborhoods. | draw_down wrote: | samatman wrote: | I'd love to see so much as a tiny shred of evidence of this, | it doesn't pass the smell test. | | Austin? Ok, sure. How many Californians are expatriating to | Lisbon? Is it that many? Ok, let's do Londoners next. | | A lot more right? | | Principal factors, you say. Let's see it. | swearwolf wrote: | As a resident, what do you think was the catalyst for these | changes? | [deleted] | pkaye wrote: | A lot of people moved into the bay area for the good jobs, | nice weather and nature. Once housing demand pushed above | supply, prices started shooting up. Those locals whose | incomes didn't grow were pushed out of their homes. The bay | area is boxed in by the hills so hard to expand out. Also a | lot of the land was already build up with single family homes | and other low density housing a long time ago so upgrading | the density is harder. The public transportation is also | limited. BART didn't expand to south bay until a few years | ago. And the stations are far apart. Undoing all this mess | will be much more expensive now. | 62951413 wrote: | Actually California natives have one good thing going for | them. Prop 13. So if you or your parents have lived in the | house for 30+ years you're likely to pay $2K in property | taxes on a $1M house (annually). The lack of middle-class | jobs is a whole different story. | pkaye wrote: | Not just natives. Anyone who moved here a decade back | might benefit. I grew up here but it was still difficult | to buy a house when young because the housing prices kept | ahead of salaries. The drop in prices during the last | recession is what gave me the chance. | ghaff wrote: | And that is the flip side to Prop 13, which a bunch of | people like to hate on. Absent Prop 13 (for residential | properties) a lot of long-term residents would be forced | out by rapidly rising property taxes. Which would-be | residents may not like but is not at all clearly a bad | thing. | renewiltord wrote: | The fact that proponents of Prop 13 oppose restricting it | to primary residence or exempting commercial property | from protection, etc. show that this is not the real | truth for why people like Prop 13. | | Besides, you can simply transfer-tax it anyway. For a | primary residence, this being the system: | | 1. You pay Prop 13 tax | | 2. You accrue true prop tax | | 3. You may sell the home and buy a new home and net-cap- | gains you get the accrued tax taken out of profit | | So then you don't get "pushed out", you pay when you | sell, and it only applies to your home not to your rental | properties. But that's not what people want - they | ultimately would prefer the "housing crisis" but that's | politically unpopular so they'll say other things, though | occasionally the truth will leak out. | TulliusCicero wrote: | Even if that's your angle, Prop 13 is bizarrely | overbroad. If you just wanted to protect long-term | residents from needing to move: | | * Remove its application to commercial property | | * Remove its application to second/vacation homes | | * Remove its application to inherited property | | * Only apply the restriction if the increase would be | burdensome on the household's income | | * Only apply the restriction once someone has lived in | the house for a significant amount of time, e.g. 5+ | years. | TulliusCicero wrote: | I'm also from the bay area, and it's quite simple: demand | skyrocketed due to tech, and supply couldn't keep up, due to | various kinds of regulations. | | Zoning is the most obvious regulation that makes things hard: | most land is zoned exclusively for single family homes on | large lots. There's been a bit of movement on this from the | state level to allow ADU's or duplexes, but not enough, | there's usually various legal hurdles that make it harder. | Missing middle housing is mostly still illegal. | | The other thing is all the various processes involved. CEQA | makes things take a long time (not that I'm opposed to | protecting the environment, but surely there's a way to do it | that doesn't take years for an apartment complex). Community | meetings and planning commissions can often block new | developments for random, arbitrary reasons, like "tall | building would cast too many shadows" or "demand on street | parking would increase"; these are things that are so | obviously inherent to any significant development permitted | in areas where you _can_ build taller apartment buildings, | and yet they 're still used to block more housing. | DrNosferatu wrote: | Very difficult to change because, in the "Pax Neoliberalia" world | we live in, profits are Sacrosanct - and the higher the capital | concentration, the holier so. But some straightforward fixes: | | 1. Flood the market with affordable state housing, Austria-style | - with the bonus of building new, boosting the national economy. | | 2. Create very progressive (rapidly rising) taxes based on | property value - making untenable the current practice of parking | money and profit by simply buying & holding empty flats and the | like. | | 3. Raise salaries - currently portuguese salaries, and their | weight on GDP, rank the lowest in the EU. | | (and no, it won't create an inflation spiral: the current | inflation spike is, first and foremost, the result of a supply | shock, price-gouging and speculative/cartel practices - corporate | profits being at a record high is proof of that) | | Unfortunately, incentives are heavily stacked on leaving things | as they are, as the ruling class is mostly made up of the | landlord class, and, is not sensitive to (sometimes even not | aware of) the struggles of assetless commoners that only earn | income from their (low) salaried labor. Or, even worse, stands to | lose their current large gains on capital/assets if this is fixed | - and most portuguese media outlets trumpet their - private - | master's voice and interests. Additionally, just leaving things | as they are, also scores brownie points with the EU by making the | Government (even if "center-left") appear "frugal". And PM Costa | has personal ambitions for future EU high office. | | (...who will be the next head of the European Commission or the | European Council?) | ido wrote: | I haven't seen number 1 actually "fix" Vienna's rental market? | I mean it's not _as_ crazy as other places, but I moved to | Vienna in 2005 (since moved out) and it used to be _a lot_ more | affordable to rent in than today (even adjusting for | inflation). So it 's not that it's completely ineffective but | it's not on it's own enough. | TulliusCicero wrote: | How much new housing have they been adding YoY? | | When people suggest that adding more new housing, either | public or private, doesn't work, this is usually left out: | how much housing _actually_ was being added? | jollybean wrote: | Well #1 is not 'straightfoward' fixes at all. Massive Real | Estate buildouts are 'gigantic' industrial projects. | | A 'straight forward fix' is to ban foreign ownership of homes | and AirBnB. Poof. Now, I wouldn't support that, but it would be | 'straight forward'. | | #2 is reasonable. | | #3 is a big glib tough. "Hey, everyone should just get a | raise!", if it were only that easy! | DrNosferatu wrote: | 1. "banning foreign ownership" would result in Portugalexit | at best, perhaps a Zairization of Portugal, or even worse - | no thanks. | | What's wrong with large industrial projects? | | _It 's exactly what we need at this moment_ - in fact, both | Portugal and EU-scale. | | This would cost a small fraction of the Quantitative Easing | program from the European Central Bank. | | (and these Massive Real Estate buildouts must include the | lessons in Urbanism learned from past such projects) | | 2. (y) | | 3. State sector raises salaries, private sector is forced to | follow. Just raising minimum wage is positive, but not | enough. This tends to compress people to the bottom salary | tier and promote even more brain drain. | stjohnswarts wrote: | (1). why not just make it painful to be a foreigner there. | Raise taxes on rent/property if you're foreign by 3-4x (or | whatever makes sense after an analysis of building new | housing from foreigner tax dollars). If you don't want to | scare off the ones already there then make it not | retroactive. People like to make these situations tougher | than they need to be. Mostly it's impossible because | politicians are paid off by the 1% (foreign and domestic). | The Portuguese have a right to enjoy their country without | foreigners coming in and buying it off and pushing them to | the edge of poverty. Globalism has got us in a tenuous | situation in the West depending completely on the likes of | China for our style of living. I can understand the | Portuguese being angry with the situation. | jollybean wrote: | Large industrial projects are gigantic efforts that involve | billions of dollars and years/decades to take effect, | massive capital requirements. And risk. | | "State sector raises salaries, private sector is forced to | follow." ... my god man, no, that's not how it works. | | More like: "Already inefficient state bureaucracies raise | salaries, attracting workers from private sector who cannot | afford to pay higher wages, requiring massive budgetary | increase from government i.e. 'more taxes' just as economy | goes into tailspin due to private sector layoffs. | | Probably the EU needs to re-think the fact that it's | designed to send all young workers to Germany or at least | out of Portugual/Spain/S. Italy and Greece and leave them | as octegenarian tourist centres with illegal Turkish | workers doing the actual work. | | Either 1) the EU starts massive transfer payments or 2) get | rid of the Euro and have some limits on mobility, or it | will just limp along. #1 might require political and fiscal | integration which would probably just exasperate the | problem. | | In the short term, they should probably raise taxes on | foreign home ownership. | spaniard89277 wrote: | > 1. "banning foreign ownership" would result in | Portugalexit at best, perhaps a Zairization of Portugal, or | even worse - no thanks. | | What? This makes no sense. You basically leave out a large | chunk of the induced demand. There you have your prices | lowering. | Tiktaalik wrote: | > Poof | | This has pretty much already been done in Vancouver, which | has layers of Foreign Buyer Taxes, Speculation Taxes, Empty | Home Taxes and strict Airbnb regulation. | | It absolutely did not make the problem go 'poof.' | | All these things were well worth doing and helped in various | ways, but it remains that the core underlying problem is that | there's not enough homes for everyone and scarcity ensures | high rents and high prices. The dull solution is that a hell | of a lot of homes need to be built. | WalterBright wrote: | Inflation is not the result of profits, gouging, etc. It's the | result of funding the deficit by running the printing press. | (Or the modern equivalent, creating debt backed by nothing.) | | The proof is the observation that endemic inflation only | happens in countries with fiat money systems. | sofixa wrote: | I'm not sure you deserve engaging, but I'll give it a try. | | So you're just going to ignore a war involving two of the | biggest exporters of some of the main raw materials we have | (foodstuffs and energy) on the planet and associated supply | problems on crucial things? Not to mention a pandemic that | wrecked havoc on supply lines. None of that matters, your | theory goes, it's purely a monetary phenomenon, because only | countries with fiat money systems are impacted. Could you | share some countries with alternative money systems that | aren't impacted? | WalterBright wrote: | If it was _not_ caused by fiat money, I 'd expect to see | corresponding periods of deflation. Inflation is a | _sustained_ increase in the _general_ price level. It is | not a temporary spike from the fluctuations in supply | &demand of goods and services. | | Another way to understand it is to consider, what happens | if the price of gas rises? Does that automatically put more | money in your pocket to pay for it? Nope. You just have | less money to spend on other things. But inflation (with a | lag period) does put more money in your pocket. | | > Could you share some countries with alternative money | systems that aren't impacted? | | Modern countries have all gone fiat. But we can look at the | US from 1800-1914, which was not fiat money. There was zero | _net_ inflation in that period, while we 've had endemic | inflation ever since (aside from a brief period of | deflation during the Depression). | | > I'm not sure you deserve engaging | | What I wrote is not the general opinion, though it is the | opinion of economists. At least you were willing to talk | about it, which is nice. | selectodude wrote: | The value of fiat currency is roughly money supply divided | by economic output. If the numerator rises faster than the | denominator, well... | | Obviously it's a more complicated than that, especially in | the context of the US Dollar, but for smaller countries | it's pretty basic stuff. | spaceman_2020 wrote: | Inflation isn't terribly bad in countries that didn't print | wild amounts of money. | | Like in India, inflation is almost back in control, and we | didn't print much money. | | Same in China. | | I haven't run the numbers but if you were to chart | inflation vs the money printing done by an economy, you'd | likely find a positive correlation. | WalterBright wrote: | The WSJ ran a chart a few weeks ago showing inflation | lagged money printing by about 13 months. | andrekandre wrote: | i think the better question to ask is, whats the bigger | contributor to inflation of prices recently...? | | gas prices? electronics supply issues? general supply chain | issues? (expected soon) energy/food supply issues? | | how does commodity money fix that? | rovolo wrote: | > Inflation is not the result of profits, gouging, etc. | | Inflation is the measure of the price of goods | | > It's the result of funding the deficit by running the | printing press | | Increasing the money supply indirectly increases the price of | goods. It matters in the long run, but the price of goods can | change in the short-term based on supply. The oil crisis of | the 1970s caused oil prices to increase because oil supply | was limited. This would have caused inflation even without an | increased money supply. | | > creating debt backed by nothing. ... fiat money systems. | | This is more of a tangent, but the money supply can also | shrink in fiat systems. Fiat currency can be shrunk via | taxes. Debts can be defaulted. Fiat systems aren't inherently | inflationary; but they target a low level of inflation | because they prefer it to deflation. | stuaxo wrote: | So, elites in the UK and elsewhere price locals out, some of them | in turn go to countries like Portugal and price the locals out. | tpmx wrote: | What's that "hostile climate" in the sub-headline about? | somewhereoutth wrote: | 5 years resident here (as a Brexit refugee). | | Central city locations in Lisbon and Porto have exploded in | price, but this is due to AirBnB rather than rich expats. | Portugal's tourism industry has boomed, which has put money in a | lot of people's pockets, but has distorted local economies | somewhat. Better management is required, for example cracking | down on AirBnB and NOT building that new cruise liner terminal. | | Unfortunately the upper middle class idyll (alluded to in the | article) of living a dilapidated (but in a cool way) apartment | ten paces from your favourite coffee shop, while doing a socially | respectable play job is now no more viable here than in SF, | London or Berlin. Indeed, my own favourite 'coffee shop' got | turned into a chain tequila bar. | | Outside the hot centres, things aren't as bad. Public transport | (at least in the AML - Lisbon Metropolitan Area) is excellent by | any standard, and decent apartments are available for sensible | prices well within one hour public transport commute of the | downtown. Compare with London, where people are fighting over | each rental. | | > family factor weighs a lot here | | Yes, and this is a problem, given that Portugal only became | democratic 48 years ago and has a large amount of cultural | baggage from quite frankly medieval times. Also, the implication | of this statement is that family doesn't count elsewhere - and in | case you missed it it was spelled out a few lines later, which | should give you an idea of the residual naivety and insularity of | (old) Portuguese culture. Agency - the idea that _you_ can do or | think something independently, and then take responsibility for | it - is somewhat lacking too. | | But! There is much that is very good about Portugal and the | Portuguese people, I feel that here it is ok to be kind to each | other. Furthermore, there are good changes, new opportunities are | arising (perhaps in a very small part to some of the more | productive visa holders), and I see a great future for Portugal - | even if many Portuguese often don't. | andrepd wrote: | (Calling yourself a "refugee" as a rich immigrant is a bit off- | puting, imho) | | Why do you say that the rise in housing prices has been due to | AirBnB but not to rich immigrants? It seems a bit odd. Both can | outbid the average native and just push prices high. Many rich | immigrants also buy up loads of property for | speculative/investment purposes, not just to live in. | | >has a large amount of cultural baggage from quite frankly | medieval times | | I wonder what exactly you mean by this. | iostream25 wrote: | not the op. agree that op is not refugee fleeing war on | inflatable boat. | | I distilled "lack of agency" as: not rewarding initiative, | people afraid to take initiative. the portuguese boss does | not like the employee to take initiative, and the employee | will not do so. copying existing British designs is "safer" | socially speaking, than making new designs. | | source: I'm portuguese, I'm a weirdo and people always try to | conform me to a box. | sanedigital wrote: | We lived in Lisbon for a year. While lots of city centers | have had housing converted to Short-term Rentals, Lisbon is | at an entirely different level. There, entire apartment | _buildings_ (6-10 units) are converted to Airbnbs | /hotels/hostels. There are streets in the more touristy areas | where every other building is for STRs (buildings that were | clearly built as long-term housing). | spaniard89277 wrote: | Rich expats too, who are you trying to fool. Can rich expats | outbid the average Portuguese? If the answer is yes, then | there's not much discussion to have. | taylorius wrote: | "Indeed, my own favourite 'coffee shop' got turned into a chain | tequila bar." | | The horror! ;-) | paganel wrote: | > but this is due to AirBnB | | Others have said it before, but mass tourism is the new Dutch | disease [1]. Pure tourist cities like Venice are already too | affected by it to have a chance of getting back to a normal | economic and social life, but there are other cities that are | still trying to fight it, like Barcelona. Not sure if there are | any political forces in Lisbon or Porto ready to take the same | stance. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease | epolanski wrote: | > one hour public transport commute of the downtown. | | Who doesn't want to spend 15% of his woke day commuting. | tuatoru wrote: | In the long run the problem is self-correcting. | | If workers can't afford to live in what were the important | cities, they live elsewhere. | | Eventually employers move to where the workers are. The formerly | important cities become tourist meccas like Venice or Granada, or | ghost towns. | | This is happening to London and Lisbon, and to a lesser extent to | Amsterdam, Paris, New York and San Francisco, and other cities. | | It's a pity, because the famous cities got big early because | they're in good places for trade. Their replacements are second | best in this regard. | ekkeke wrote: | Don't agree with this analysis, it will end just not like that. | The workers will have worse and worse living conditions until | they're reduced to effective serfdom. Eventually they may rise | up and force change through voting or riots, but that's quite | unlikely for some time as the generations that benefitted from | this still outnumber those suffering. | | The sad thing is that this has been done by one generation to | the following one, parents impoverishing their own children. | Not intentionally perhaps, but they have created the artificial | supply side restrictions through planning laws and nimbyism | that have resulted in their childrens impoverishment. | | One of my friends is paying half his salary in rent with his | own house impossibly out of sight, while his parents own | multiple properties and rent them out. | zozbot234 wrote: | > ... The workers will have worse and worse living conditions | until they're reduced to effective serfdom. | | Both outcomes are possible; it basically depends om whether | the high productivity of the most expensive cities is truly | exceptional - in which case it won't benefit most workers - | or something that can be readily replicated in the rest of | the country. We've mostly seen examples of the former in | places like the Bay Area: there's only a limited number of | Big Tech unicorns around at any given time, after all. But | the latter is a theoretical possibility, perhaps driven by | more ubiquitous sorts of sustained technological change and | innovation. | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | The problem won't be solved until ordinary people start burning | down luxury apartments and AirBnbs. | asdff wrote: | Why is the situation always "lets attempt to tax investors who | are notorious for skirting around their full tax burden" instead | of directly attacking the conditions that lead to this area being | a favorable area to park money in the first place? Namely, you | have too many jobs and not enough housing. | | Sometime in the last 100 years, leaders around the western world | realized the massive real estate opportunity of strangling | natural urban growth and price gouging on the limited supply they | artificially created through euclidean zoning and countless | layers of regulatory process meant to disincentivize investment | in development. Just build more housing, and a lot of the | economic ills of the 2020s around the world will evaporate. | immibis wrote: | Nobody wins elections by promising to destroy jobs. | [deleted] | rcarmo wrote: | As a Portuguese living in Lisbon, I find this article to be all | over the place. Sometimes it's realistic, often it's just | sensationalist. | | Yes, real estate prices are nuts right now. I have no clue how my | kids are going to find places to live when they want to move out, | but I can tell you that a lot of that is just plain and simple | greed from builders and homeowners who often refuse to maintain | (let alone re-paint or improve) existing buildings. | | There are also political aspects to how zoning and development | takes place, but those vary so much depending on region and party | lines that I'll just call it lack of political responsibility | (also, most people outside the extreme left or right don't want | to get involved in politics, lobbying or economic discussions). | | There was a very big emphasis some 40-50 years ago on building | thoroughfares, regional transportation, and nationalizing what | passed for core industries, but all roads led to district | capitals at the expense of doing actual regional development. | Efforts to foster or sustain most industries largely failed | (although there are echoes of those in current startup support | programs, and some regional programs of note), so young people | gravitated towards the shoreline (and towns, and the services | industry) and the countryside just aged away. | | I have been thinking of moving out of Lisbon to a smaller town | (property prices are tempting), but health, shopping, etc., are | just not there, because everything of interest (brand and | specialists stores, entertainment, etc.) is mostly only available | in district capitals, and most large companies only have offices | in Lisbon or the mongrel outskirts of it, in business centres | that are only reachable by car and lack decent public | transportation. | | So that makes it hard to get a decent paycheck outside Lisbon and | Oporto, unless you're willing to become a chattel to some lobbies | who are sponsoring local colleges hoping to get cheap tech labor | out of new graduates, paying them just enough to stick around. | | A good summary of all the above is what happened in a district | near Lisbon --- a previous mayor (who went to jail for corruption | and actually got reelected afterwards) supported the creation of | malls, business centers, etc., but punted on public | transportation (leaving a local university center effectively | stranded) and futzed about with zoning to allow premium villas to | be built. | | I have been expecting the Lisbon real estate market to crash | _hard_ for a while now, but people with college degrees are | somehow managing to pay rent or mortgaging other family assets to | buy flats in the city. The rest struggle, of course, and are | pushed out to the suburbs. | | I wonder for how much longer things will stay this way. | Portuguese are becoming more technically literate on average, so | that gives me some hope, but I just don't see the overall economy | evolving beyond the primary industry/services and tourism | dichotomy, no matter how many tech unicorns spring up and bring | expats here. | | (On that note, Portuguese wages, even in FAANG companies, are | merely a fraction of our US, UK, German and Swiss counterparts, | and that can't be explained solely through cost of living | comparisons... but that's a completely different discussion) | kmeisthax wrote: | I see three colluding factors causing a global cost-of-living | crisis: | | - Increasing income inequality short-circuiting the backpressure | role of market pricing (and, more specifically, the use of home | ownership and immigrant-investor programs as a way to sidestep | restrictive immigration systems) | | - Countries attempting to replicate the American suburban | lifestyle, which is economically unsustainable as voters are | incentivized to constrain supply in favor of "line go up" | | - The economic gravity of living in a large city. | | The econ 101 explanation of markets is that increasing price | lowers demand, but this is determined by the "elasticity" of the | supply and demand curves. The shapes of the curves determines | what the market will do when supply or demand shifts. But if | these curves are straight lines, or "inelastic"; then suppliers | or buyers do not compromise on quantity and the market gouges | people. | | Supply is inelastic: most cities are hostile to redevelopment and | all the economically-viable land in the city has been used up. No | matter how expensive housing gets, people will not be able to | build more of it, so price goes up more. In fact, when housing | gets more valuable, there is more political resistance to | increasing supply, which makes prices go up more. | | Demand is inelastic: most housing buyers _need_ to own a house. | Homelessness is at best inconvenient and at worst illegal. Moving | out of a city is expensive, and will require finding new | employment, possibly at a lower hourly rate or salary. | | The end result is that the housing market works less like a | market and more like NFTs pre-a-few-months-ago. It is politically | engineered to ensure quick and profitable exits for the vast | majority of homeowners. However, this process cannot go on | forever; because eventually home costs will outstrip wages, which | puts backpressure on the whole "line go up" thing. | | This is where the rich and powerful come in. They do not respond | to pricing backpressure the same way you or me do. If a flat in | Portugal is a million euros instead of half a million, who the | hell cares? They can afford it anyway. They represent "greatest | fools" - people who can resolve a speculative bubble by just | buying the asset and not caring about it. | | It's also kind of a mistake to say that "the Portuguese can no | longer afford to live in Portugal". The population is not a | monolith; it's more correct to say that _today 's middle class | Portuguese_ cannot afford to live in their own country, but prior | decades' middle classes absolutely could have, and the price | inflation in the housing market is specifically to the benefit of | those people. | klabb3 wrote: | > - Countries attempting to replicate the American suburban | lifestyle | | Really, where? I thought only fractions of the anglosphere | replicated this (like parts of Canada). Extremely few Europeans | would want that lifestyle, for instance. The trend seems to be | moving aggressively in the opposite direction, with large and | dense cities attracting the majority of new people. | alephnerd wrote: | It's not parts of Canada - it's all of Canada. A member of | our extended family runs a construction firm in Western CA | and they've been building suburban tract housing EVERYWHERE - | from Nanaimo to Abbotsford to Edmonton. And the same kind of | sprawly suburban tract housing thaat exissts in North America | is a popular status symbol in India, Vietnam, Malaysia, and | China to name a few. Drive around Chandigarh, Delhi NCR, HMC, | or Johor sometime. Also, if talking about Europeans, it's | probably good to specify which part of Europe. Milton Keynes, | Amstelveen, Dublin, Aarhus, and Espoo all feel very North | American suburban in style. | klabb3 wrote: | Interesting, thanks for the pointers. Now that I think of | it, I think Saudi Arabia and UAE may be added to that list. | alephnerd wrote: | Yep! They also prefer suburban tract housing. Also in | Ireland and UK in my experience (my coworkers in the | London office all moved to Reading, MK, Newbury, etc once | they started familes). Amsterdam as well after visiting | another cousin in Amsteveel, and Aahrus and Espoo to meet | a buddy of mine who went to Aarhus Universitet and | started at Nokia | prmoustache wrote: | First the linked article would do with a bit of proofreading, it | is painful at this point. | | The market is mostly driven by portuguese government offering low | taxes to people retiring in the country. | | This won't be sustainable in the long run as all those people | retiring now likely got less kids than the previous gen and will | gonna die soon. This is a bubble that will pop in the next | 20years when the amount of people dying and properties being put | on sale will be much greater than people willing to retire there. | | Also it is not like all these properties sold didn't benefit | portuguese people. | rcarmo wrote: | Actually, the market is being driven by wealthy real estate | owners who don't want to do anything but sit back and rake in | the profits. The government has been sponsoring visas to get | investment in to diversify our industry and economics, but the | people coming here to work are not really the ones buying | luxury flats. | jmyeet wrote: | Remember when people talked about the impending Florida real | estate collapse, the so-called "Silver Tsunami"? | | Same (theorized) dynamic. Retired people dying. | | The notion seems almost quaint in light of current events. | TekMol wrote: | I hope Portugal won't tackle it like my country, with a cap on | rent and other market distortions. I think that only makes it | worse. | | Fun fact: I - as a single - live in a way too big, luxurious and | expensive apartment because of this. I rented it, when I was | still working for the man and was making a killing. Now I live a | much more modest 4-hour-workweek life. It would be better for me | to move to an apartment half the size. Then a big family could | live here nicely. But no way. No landlord in Germany rents to a | freelancer who enjoys a "I'm mainly slacking off for a while" | lifestyle. | WastingMyTime89 wrote: | Heavily taxing houses that stay empty and limiting short | duration rental could be quite effective. | | The issue is somewhat the same in Paris. It's very hard to | afford living there because non local use properties as an | investment and prefer them staying empty than risking them | degraded and people who want to rent make more money on Airbnb. | | It's fine if you want the city to become Disneyland but very | depressing otherwise. | andrepd wrote: | This issue of speculation on empty properties would be, if | not solved, then at least immensely alleviated with a | Georgist LVT (Land Value Tax), a tax on properties equal to | the rent for the undeveloped piece of land. | | It's easy to implement, the market exists to price that | amount, and provides a direct incentive to either put the | property to productive use or get rid of it. | | Building physical houses to sit empty as a financial | instrument has to be one of the peaks of capitalist insanity. | solveit wrote: | > Building physical houses to sit empty as a financial | instrument has to be one of the peaks of capitalist | insanity. | | I quite agree, and I am therefore very suspicious that this | is actually happening in significant volume! I have never | seen convincing evidence that this happens, and it, at | least superficially, makes no sense as a money-making | scheme (Worried about degradation? That just means you | should get insurance.) In general, it doesn't make | financial sense to keep capital idle, and claims of such | should be taken with a grain of salt, especially if the | messaging is politically charged as "rich foreigners are | screwing the common man over to make money". | | I agree that an LVT would be the solution if this were | actually a problem. And that an LVT solves many other | problems unrelated to evil foreign billionaires. | ryukafalz wrote: | Indeed. I'm most familiar with the US market so can't | speak for European countries which may be different, but | here's a graph of estimated vacant units held off-market | against total housing units in the US: | | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=TiNw | abeppu wrote: | Is this a high or a low number? On the one hand, <5% of | units vacant sounds small. On the other hand, this is | about 12x as many as there are estimated homeless in the | US. | | https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/2020-point-in- | time-co... | solveit wrote: | 4% vacancy is what you get if people live in a house for | two years before moving, and it takes a month before a | new family moves in. Sounds pretty normal, and with no | obvious way of using this idle time to help the homeless. | [deleted] | al_mandi wrote: | > Heavily taxing houses | | Two wrongs don't make a right. | TekMol wrote: | Are those really making a dent? What percentage of Lisbons | apartments stay empty? What percentage is used for short | duration rental? | | I would think only a small one-digit percentage? | jonathanstrange wrote: | There are tons (like, really many) of empty, closed rotting | buildings in Lisbon. My assumption is the owners are | waiting for prices to increase or simply demanding | unreasonably inflated prices until they find a buyer. I'd | like to know the reasons for it. Anyway, whole blocks are | empty. Heck, there is a large empty building directly next | to the German embassy (and, ironically, part of the German | embassy is also abandoned and empty even though it belongs | to it). | | There is also a substantial number of new luxury apartment | buildings in my area with apartments that appear to be | empty. Whether they are owned yet or to be sold is hard to | determine but you can see when nobody lives there. | stainforth wrote: | Exactly. There should be a tax on vacancy. We've made the | 1) mistake of turning a very special need like shelter | into a commodity or security vehicle, and 2) this | commodity the owner can "hold-out" on in that makes it | violate the principles of economics that we all | supposedly agreed upon from above that the market is the | most fair and best solution for people. | intrasight wrote: | Cute, walkable cities are the original Disneyland - there's | no changing that and in fact it will become more pronounced. | | taxing empty - yes | | limiting short duration - no, just tax it more. Limits are | too easy to hack. | djbebs wrote: | Youll be happy to learn that every rental property in portugal | is under rent control! | | Some have been unable to raise rents since the 1910s! | aprdm wrote: | Similar in Vancouver. If you've been renting for 7+ years, you | won't move even if the place doesn't fit you anymore. You would | be paying close to double. | rjzzleep wrote: | I don't think Germany is a great example at all cause they | would rather rent out to a good German girl who's dad has money | than to a foreign professional who has a longterm work contract | in Germany. I agree that the annoying lifestyle expats are a | problem, but bringing up something completely unrelated with a | whole host of its own issues is a really weird way to make a | point. | BlargMcLarg wrote: | It's a combination of things really. | | Lack of building when the population is still growing. | | Encouraging single lifestyle, both by kicking out kids early | and shacking up later. | | Cases where sitting on an empty property is risk free. | | Infrastructure increases taking valuable space. | | Giving early birds great deals compared to today, making them | sit on huge housing for a pittance and making moving out a | terrible deal. | | And politically, there simply is no immediate incentive to | solve things when the current population of homeowners does | not contain enough people to vote in favor of those that | don't own homes. | tumetab1 wrote: | > I hope Portugal won't tackle it like my country, with a cap | on rent and other market distortions. I think that only makes | it worse. | | That's one of the reasons why portuguese renting market is so | bad. There were rent control policies for like 40 years. It has | been phased out but the market still has the signs of its | damages. | | There also other contributing policies and the policies change | almost every two years. | | I'm one that could invest in the market, to bring more houses | to be rent, but I can not risk 150 000 euros buying a house to | rent (middle income market) and then having problems evicting | with a non-paying renter, being forbidden to increase the rent | due a new law or god help me if I need to use the court system | to ask for renter damages. | stainforth wrote: | So either we preference your 150000 euros (and of course | interest and margin on top) or someone having a roof over | their head, running water, and even the ability to stay in | the same are and building community instead of moving each | year due to capital seeking max gains. | epolanski wrote: | But he said he want to do it to help a family, not his | pockets. /s | consp wrote: | There are other ways to be stuck, I'm in subsidized housing | which I would like to give to the less fortunate but buying is | impossible and leaving would mean half the space and four times | the rent making me have less remaining per month than the less | fortunate in my current appartment. | substation13 wrote: | Indeed. Price caps turn an expensive market into a lottery. | Hardly an improvement, in my view. | andrepd wrote: | Large amounts of public-built housing (and I mean large, in | the order of at least ~20% of the market) have a track record | of working amazingly well to lower the cost of housing to | acceptable levels and to give everyone a chance at | homeownership. | mupuff1234 wrote: | I wonder how much Airbnb is to blame on the raising rents around | the world. Why charge a "local" rate when you can charge 5x that | rate for a tourist paying in $$$? Even if you don't, just knowing | about Airbnb's extremely high prices will most likely put | inflationary pressure on rents. | dorchadas wrote: | In August 2019, ~1600 places were up for rent in Dublin. In | August 2020, it was double that. Mostly from tourist hotspots | with AirBnB people trying to shift to long term lets. They're | back on AirBnB now, and housing is even shittier than it was | before. Yes, there's other issues, but AirBnB has been a | _known_ problem in Ireland since at least 2016 when I was first | looking at places to rent in the country. | | The government has said they're going to start tackling the | issue of short term lets this month. I'll believe it when I see | it. | nickpp wrote: | Didn't Ireland have a campaign against greedy landlords with | rent controls, 52% tax, no deductions, no evictions?! That | would explain much better the disaster in rental market... | davidw wrote: | I live in a touristy place in the US, and while STR (short term | rentals) clearly don't help, the city's own statistics show | they're not a huge factor. | | More than anything, NIMBY neighbors keep killing less expensive | forms of housing... 100's of homes, I would say, in the time | since I started observing the situation. | | STR's make for a convenient bogeyman that people can point | their finger at. It's a bit more disturbing when you realize | it's actually your neighbors; kind, ordinary people in most | regards. | bombcar wrote: | STRs almost by _definition_ can 't be the entirety of the | problem, except in cases where there's an absolute limit on | available units, and it's highly desirable as a tourist | destination (Venice, for example). | | STRs just slipped past the NIMBYs because they weren't on the | lookout for it; it won't happen again! | coding123 wrote: | The liberal enclaves of high paying jobs has been broken. These | people decided to move to exotic or rural or destination places | because we paid them like kings. Now we have a lot of entitled | kings running around ruining everything yesteryear. | fbanon wrote: | Step 1: nearly bankrupt your country | | Step 2: sell out your country to wealthy foreigners to "stimulate | the economy" | | Step 3: act surprised that you can't afford living in your | country, that got sold out to wealthy foreigners | immibis wrote: | Step 4: say "oops, we can't afford to pay you the stuff we | promised, but you should have known that, because you are smart | investors and you checked our balance sheet and houseflow | first" and then default on the investments. I wonder why these | places are so desperate not to do that. | throwayyy479087 wrote: | Because the international class that sets policy - and is | heavily represented on this site - would lose money if they | did so. Better to focus on idpol like ingroup/outgroup blame. | outworlder wrote: | In this case, the 'wealthy foreigners' are large corporations | (and foreign governments). Not the occasional gringo that | decides to bridge the language barrier and buy property there. | [deleted] | mariojv wrote: | Related article in the WSJ today about Americans buying European | homes due to the favorable exchange rate: | https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-the-u-s-dollar-surges-americ... | | I wonder how this will impact "golden visas." Personally, if | moving to Europe, I would be a little concerned about short-term | energy insecurity pretty much anywhere except perhaps the Iberian | peninsula. I think they'll find a solution, but it'd be hard to | make such a big bet on without certainty. | petre wrote: | The Iberian peninsula imports gas from Algeria. The instant | they accept Moroccan control over Western Sahara is the instant | the gas stops flowing from Algeria to Spain and Portugal. | mariojv wrote: | Do you think this is likely to happen? I don't know enough | about the politics of the region to know if this is something | they would do. | petre wrote: | Yes, it's quite possible. After Abdelaziz Bouteflika | resigned, the current Algerian government started working | against France and the EU. Lots of French investment in | Algeria, so they're basically also working against | themselves, betting most if not all of their economy on oil | and gas. Apart from ocasional territorial disputes, Spain | and Morrocco are on okay terms and the current Spanish | goverment is supporting the Moroccan plan for the autonomy | of Western Sahara, which is close to their holiday islands, | the Canarias. This move drew hash criticism and threats | from Algeria who's establishment unconditionally supports | the Polisario front. They're a nationalist movement working | against Spanish colonialism and Moroccan and Mauritanian | irredentism. Spain is walking on quite a thin line in | Africa. I need not remind you that virtually all of their | gas comes from Hassi R'Mel, Algeria. | smm11 wrote: | humanwhosits wrote: | Why does anyone let non-resident people buy residential housing? | ejb999 wrote: | not every country does allow it, but you don't have to buy to | cause a problem for locals - just be willing to pay more rent | than a local can afford is enough of a problem to price | others(locals) out. | closedloop129 wrote: | That's the wrong question. If you sell housing to non-resident | people, you receive money to build more housing. The question | should be: | | Why does anybody limit supply of housing to the point that | prices rise? | | The French did a bad job at building satellite cities, but done | right, you could connect new housing to the city center like | the original Los Angeles street cars. | | If jobs don't pay much then you also don't pay much to the | builders of new houses which makes them affordable. | stjohnswarts wrote: | I don't think it is. If you can't own the property or have to | pay extreme taxes you will definitely think twice about | moving there or buying up real estate. Make it -hurt-. Then | only billionaires can afford to live there. Problem solved, | there aren't that many billionaires. Or simply outlaw it. I | don't know why that is hard? I mean they own their country. | No one has a right to buy property there other than the | Portuguese if they just say no. | immibis wrote: | You're conflating different values of "you". If I sell my | house to a non-resident person and receive money, why should | I use that money to build more housing, rather than a | Ferrari? Meanwhile, the people who actually build the houses | aren't the ones selling all the existing stock in the most | desirable locations. They are stuck building suburban sprawl | because that's where the empty space is. | closedloop129 wrote: | 'You' was meant in a general way. Somebody sells a house, | the money exchanges hands several times, and then somebody | else can build a new house - unless the money ends up in | Maranello. | | The desirable locations are a renewable resource. Portugal | could build new desirable areas. They could even turn this | into a recurring business and sell them to international | investors, too. Instead of building suburban sprawl they | can build more urban clusters. | kblev wrote: | Banning international sales is a politically damaging move | because it would crash the market value of existing housing, | affecting those residents who own one (or more), particularly | if they're on a mortgage. It also reduces the tax income from | properties and propert sales. Banks probably wouldn't be too | happy either that the security on the loans no longer cover the | outstanding balance. | | Things will probably shift when the proportion of renters | significantly outnumber the home owners. | tumetab1 wrote: | To bring some facts regarding the housing market: | | The evolution of new housing construction over the last years | https://www.pordata.pt/en/Portugal/Completed+dwellings+in+ne... | | The number of conventional family houses in Portugal | https://www.pordata.pt/en/Portugal/Conventional+family+housi... | | My opinions: The housing market has been stagnant since 2010 | while at the same time interest rates have been low. The | population might not have risen a lot since 2010 but the usual | trends of moving to city centers, people leaving their parents | house (which keep the same house), people wanting new/bigger | houses than their parents are still pressures present. | | This means there's a big pressure in demand for housing which is | not being met by supply which increases the prices. My | speculation is that foreign investment has a very low impact in | the housing prices, but it's just my speculation. Even if it's a | considerable impact, the fix is always to increase supply of | houses so that prices drop and we also get foreign investment. | dougmwne wrote: | Oh yeah, there's the problem right there. They stopped building | houses in 2010! | iostream25 wrote: | You could say the same about <countryname> where <countryname> is | a popular tourist destination that has over 15% of it's economy | based in tourism. Czechs were the minority property owners in | Prague some 20 years ago, already. | | Inflation is occurring at higher rates in some countries than | others (cough Estonia, Turkey for example) and Portugal is not | exceptional in this respect. The starting salaries for doctors in | the Portuguese SNS are terrible, at around 1800 euro for doctors | and 1200 euro for nurses. This is insufficient for living in | Lisbon or Porto, as the author would agree. | | Source: I am Portuguese. I live in central Portugal. | | I do not like the authors apparent intentions in trying to incite | anti-foreigner sentiments. Portugal has chosen it's own course | here, from the Golden Visas to the over-reliance on tourism. | Lisbon has it's own management problems that I won't dig into, | but suffice it to say that _certain_ places like Lisbon or Porto | have become rather expensive, while the majority of the interior | of the country continues to be less-inhabited. Our train services | were gutted when the public system was privatized and the | concession given to a single company. | | Monopolies run rampant in Portugal. | | Uniquely complaining about PORTUGAL being unaffordable for the | PORTUGUESE is such a Portuguese mentality, I can't even. The | author needs to live abroad in some other countries for awhile | and see how much this is a general issue relating to so-called | NICE CITIES becoming horribly expensive. No doubt, we will stop | being fashionable at some point, when the "next" cool place | becomes king, so the real question is whether we will begin | manufacturing and developing other sectors of our economy beyond | raw-materials export (low in the capitalist pyramid) and tourism. | Make furniture to sell, rather than exporting the timber, so to | speak. | parminya wrote: | > Uniquely complaining about PORTUGAL being unaffordable for | the PORTUGUESE is such a Portuguese mentality, I can't even. | | I love this complaint. It's so perfectly a demonstrations of | itself. It's somehow as if, suffering a problem that someone | else suffers from, means you're not allowed to even discuss it. | It's also hardly unique to Portugal. Most countries discuss | domestic politics in terms of the country, because they have | say over the policy of non-domestic territories. (Usually - | colonial empires excepted.) | WheatM wrote: | bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: | This same story seems to be playing out anywhere that attracts it | and allows it. | ReptileMan wrote: | There are good arguments that foreigners should only be allowed | to own real estate only in specific places and that citizenship | should be by blood only for small countries - let's say under | 100000 sq km and 50 million people. Too easy for them to be | overtaken by global elite otherwise. | outworlder wrote: | > There are good arguments that foreigners should only be | allowed to own real estate only in specific places | | In the context of receiving visas, that's exactly what | already happens in Portugal. | ReptileMan wrote: | No. They can buy everywhere in Portugal. The idea is that | you forbid them to buy near the desirable coast and force | them into the heartland. | foogazi wrote: | > There are good arguments that foreigners should only be | allowed to own real estate only in specific places | | What are the good arguments ? | | Do you think the "global elite" is invading Portugal ? | [deleted] | ReptileMan wrote: | The poorer part. The richer are busy fucking up London, New | York and Vancouver and other desirable places. | notch656a wrote: | Citizenship-by-investment programs are dominated by small | nations. Seems like smaller nations actually | disproportionately favor absorbing richer foreigners. | | The most extreme example is probably Comoros, which up until | a few years ago you could become a citizen for $45k over-the- | counter. | cpach wrote: | Unless you have really crappy weather, like here in Sweden :-p | cinntaile wrote: | What do you mean. Sweden has hugely inflated housing prices. | jmauritz wrote: | Tourists / foreigners buying houses i guess, although i | predict that in the coming 10-20 years we'll be seeing | mediterraneans escaping the summer heat in the north. | beebeepka wrote: | With global warming, the north is going to have the best | weather in a few decades, maybe less. | | You guys are going to have it all. | Dma54rhs wrote: | It will still be over half of the year, I don't thinking | climate change will change that. | [deleted] | foogazi wrote: | Lots of contradictions in tfa | | Does Portugal have US style NIMBYs ? Why not build more housing | | Sounds like Golden visas worked at attracting foreigners, raising | Portugal's land value, and incentivized citizens to move to | depopulated areas | outworlder wrote: | The rules have changed so you can no longer qualify if you buy | property at large cities. Now, you have to buy property in | smaller communities. There's a special incentive if you buy an | old property with the intent to restore it. | jonathanstrange wrote: | Yes, the situation is dire. I live in Lisbon as a foreigner for | more than 12 years now. We pay a rent for a small flat that used | to be very expensive and now is on the cheap side in our quarter | of the city. Luckily, we have an older contract that cannot be | changed as easily as newer ones. I'm not thrilled by the | possibility that our landlord might cancel it some day, however, | e.g. for relatives to move in. Rents in the city have | skyrocketed, we'd have a hard time finding _anything_ , even | though we both work full-time and have salaries above average. | It's crazy because all new homes and apartments are "luxury | apartments" with insanely high pricing both for buying and | renting. They're mostly empty or are (often illegally) rented out | as holiday apartments. It's incomprehensible to me how ordinary | Portuguese families survive in Lisbon. I guess most of them have | inherited property. | | Quite honestly, apart from the generally increasing gap between | rich and the poor, one big problem in societies nowadays is that | you can simply get richer and richer just from owning property. | For example, if you own three ordinary apartments in Lisbon, you | can live in one of them and easily make a good living by renting | out the other two as holiday apartments. Because cleaning | services, guys who do repairs, etc., are cheap in Portugal, this | involves almost no work. Moreover, the net worth of your property | will continually increase while you do (almost) nothing. I'm not | saying I blame these people, I would do the same if I had the | opportunity, but this is a huge structural problem in my opinion. | citilife wrote: | Many dislike the idea, but this is why people turn to | "nationalism". | | If you want to decrease unemployment, you add tariffs for | imports enabling more businesses to open domestically (i.e. | tariffs effectively increase import costs). | | Similarly, you can loosen building codes to increase production | of homes, limit visa duration, require citizenship for home | ownership, etc. Those are some obvious fixes, why is the | government not doing it? | | Beyond the obvious potential fixes, all EU countries are facing | the same issue: | | - supporting immigrants (high level of immigration) | | - no controls over ones border(s) (anyone can move between EU | countries) | | - over regulation and too many social programs (reducing | peoples willingness to work & increasing burden on the current | tax base) | | - over regulation of industry and farming has left the only | option to survive being to work in a city (as an example, see | nitrogen reduction regulations in the Netherlands) | | It's all "give-and-take" you have to decide how you want to | live... To me it sounds like the EU is hitting a critical | state, but is there a will to make the tough calls yet? | FerociousTimes wrote: | Check this out, this is fresh out of the oven | | Portugal eases visa rules to tackle labour shortage | | https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/portugal-eases-visa-rules-to- | ta... | | > "Portugal's unemployment rate is at 5.7%, near a record | low. | | Employers' confederations have been asking for the | immigration rules to be streamlined, pointing to an economic | situation close to full employment" | | The narrative of unemployment in Portugal driving | dissatisfaction across the population is very tenuous in | light of these latest developments and policies | lr4444lr wrote: | Europe largely isn't reproducing. It has to allow immigration | for its survival. | Manuel_D wrote: | This is very simplistic reasoning. For instance: | | > If you want to decrease unemployment, you add tariffs for | imports enabling more businesses to open domestically (i.e. | tariffs effectively increase import costs). | | Unless your domestic business requires imported goods to run | its business. Then you've just increased costs for your | domestic industry. | arinlen wrote: | > _Many dislike the idea, but this is why people turn to | "nationalism"._ | | I have to call Grade-A bullshit on your comment. | | At best, nationalist political movements take advantage of | sticking points with their highly opportunistic, | ideologically incoherent and empty promises hoping to buy | arguments while pinning the blame of everything on whoever is | the incumbent at the time. | sofixa wrote: | Basically all of what you said is empty populist propaganda | that doesn't pass a basic sniff test. You're painting the EU | as the bad guy with a broad brush and it's just total | nonsense. | | * depends on how you define "high" levels of migration, but | few EU countries fit that. Portugal does, because they | explicitly encourage it. Why? Nothing to do with the EU, | they're trying to fight negative population growth. | | * social programs aren't an EU thing, they're purely local. | And the "too much social spending makes people not want to | work" ia such bullshit. | | * there are more local regulations than EU regulations. Which | ones _specifically_ are you referring to as too much? | | * farming is explicitly subsidised to make it profitable. | What are you talking about? | | * not everyone can move between EU countries, you need to be | a citizen. Like the Portuguese that have moved all around | (e.g. there are probably millions of people of Portuguese | descent in France) | | It's annoying how popular empty nationalistic populists have | gotten. Can't nobody bother to fact check their bullshit? | groby_b wrote: | Nationalist populists really have never bothered with | facts. People fact-check, but that's too late - the message | is out, and it makes people feel better about themselves. | That's all that matters. Truth doesn't enter. | | (We could now add the Satre quote, or Hannah Arendt, or any | number of people who've written about this. The popularity | of the feel-good lie is well-inspected.) | tuatoru wrote: | Yeah, facts. Demographics explains most of what's going on. | | Portugal's working age population is declining[1] while its | 60-plus population is increasing.[2] | | Old people own most of the real estate and don't care much | about workers. They also tend not to like change, which | immigrants bring. So they dislike immigrants despite | depending on them. | | (//TODO: find papers supporting these assertions: they're | factoids of the "everyone knows" type.) | | 1. https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/1 | 5-64... | | 2. https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/6 | 0plu... | arinlen wrote: | > _Old people own most of the real estate and don 't care | much about workers._ | | Lisbon's local government is renowned for being the | largest property owner in the country, with over 60% of | Lisbon's real estate owned by the city. | zizee wrote: | I'm struggling to follow your arguments. | | "Boomers don't like immigrants/workers, therefore life is | getting really expensive" doesn't really sound like good | reasoning. | | If the population is shrinking, demographics doesn't | explain it by itself. Housing should be getting cheaper | if there are less people competing for it. There must be | another factor here. | bobthepanda wrote: | You're forgetting household size. | | As with all wealthy countries, household size has fallen | in Portugal over the past few decades, so the same amount | of people needs more house. This is especially true in | the context of empty nest retirees. | [deleted] | andrekandre wrote: | none of those things gets rid of the root causes: too much | financialization and speculation | | alot of these things used to be regulated, discouraged or | prohibited, but with deregulation of much of finance more and | more wealth is generated from speculation, rents and | leverage... if people can make money passively from doing | nothing but owning something (real or virtual) there is less | motivation for "real productive work" and squeezes out the | rest of the economy. | | this compounds over time and get the results you see today: | high land costs, rents, inflation etc. | | blocking immigration or adding tariffs etc will do nothing to | stop any that.... | epolanski wrote: | Nitrogen reduction was the very least dutch government could | do and most people in netherlands support the law. | | We should vastly reduce cattle numbers globally actually. | googlryas wrote: | You do have the opportunity though. I bet you could find, say, | 10 likeminded people and pool your resources and get those 2 | apartments. Yes, you only get 1/10th of the cut, but if it | really is easy money like that, then why not do it? | FerociousTimes wrote: | Exactly, an informal REIT targeting Portuguese properties and | with the rental income paying for the mortgage for your | apartment. | rcpt wrote: | Your comment is almost the Henry George sign | | https://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/how-to-fight-weal... | screye wrote: | Airbnb and uber for all their benefits have taken away a lot of | urban planning capabilities of local govts. At the same time, | they expose the general unwillingness of local govts to | accomodate the need of the population or those who bring in | economic value (tourists, transplants). | | If you are becoming a tourist hub, then create an off-town | tourist area and add a convenient transit line/people mover to | the central parts of town. Tourists get reasonable housing, | locals don't get displaced and the influx of population does | not destroy the cultural vibe of your town. | | Prohibition never works, and piracy is a reflection of an unmet | need. Banning things merely airs out open wounds, and leads to | grey-markets such as shady uber/airbnb equivalents within the | city. If you want to reduce abortions, banning merely leads to | riskier abortions. Examples of this are dime a dozen. | | When demand arrives, the cities MUST adjust to incoming demand. | Couple examples of working uncomfortable compromises are: 1. | Paris - Choose a small district and allow it to go full | skyscraper. The rest of the town maintains its architectural | identity. 2. Barcelona - Go full superblock. Means that tourist | activity gets neatly distributed across the city (removing | bottlenecks) and tourists do not lead to increase in car | traffic. | | I could go on and on, but 1 fundamental truth stays. | Bottlenecks only help those who control access to it. The key | is to eliminate the bottleneck (more housing). Band-aids (rent- | control) or equitable distribution of bottleneck gains (no- | renters->only-homeowners/ more single-family-housing) never | works. It only leads to the situation festering (see Bay Area / | SF), and makes for an even harder problem in the future. | | I'm not sure if my comment conveys any cohesive point, but I | hope folks get something out of it. | | p.s: fuck NIMBYs | armchairhacker wrote: | I've literally seen this same exact comment many, many times | except with different locations. Eastern Mass, New York, | Ontario, Britain, and even starting to hear it from suburban | areas. | | The exact same concepts: cheap grandfathered lease, hoping the | landlord doesn't cancel, can't afford rent despite making | >100k, "luxury apartments", empty apartments, illegal renting | (e.g. AirBnB) and shadiness. | saiya-jin wrote: | Practically every single capital is like that these days. | People of all nations can copy paste same rant and it would | be 100% valid. This is how it is, too much buying power with | new generation of higher level office workers compared to | blue collar ones, on top of financial speculation with either | prices skyrocketing, or airbnbs. Let's not forget there is | more and more of people in general, and more and more coming | for work, education etc. to bigger places and rarely going | back. | | Or to put it in reverse - I am not aware of any | metropolis/capital where this isn't true, regardless of | regime. | MattGaiser wrote: | I would argue the Canadian one of Ottawa. Ottawa isn't | cheap, but it is not anywhere near Toronto or Vancouver. | mcspiff wrote: | Right, it really should say anchor cities and not capital | IMO. Those may coincide sometimes, but not always. | epolanski wrote: | I don't think I've ever heard the absurd levels of this | blog post and I've lived in few expensive cities from | italy, poland and switzerland, where it is impossible for | middle class locals to live there. | kitten_mittens_ wrote: | You leave out Western Mass though. | personalidea wrote: | Germany is working to make its spot on the list. At least in | the cities. | jseliger wrote: | _We pay a rent for a small flat that used to be very expensive | and now is on the cheap side in our quarter of the city_ | | Portugal should build more housing, which is a simple, | effective solution if the rent is too damn high: | https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the- | ren.... | | The nice thing about indoor space is that we can make pretty | much as much of it as we'd like. | JoeJonathan wrote: | In what way is building more housing simple? If it were that | straightforward, California (which has much more space and | money) would have done it, and Californians wouldn't be | moving to Portugal. | lthornberry wrote: | For many decades, California has had extremely restrictive | building regulations, especially in the most desirable | areas. That is slowly changing, but the actual building has | always been straightforward. It is getting the permission | to do so that is complicated, expensive, and often just | impossible. | JoeJonathan wrote: | Agreed on all counts, but that doesn't make the problem | of politics any less real. People problems are always the | hardest to solve, especially when deeply problematic | policies like Prop 13 are written into the state | constitution. | TulliusCicero wrote: | You could say that it's technically simple but | politically complex, sure. | | But what that amounts to is, "we _could_ do it, but | collectively don 't feel like it." | epolanski wrote: | The most desirable areas aren't filled with buildings at | every corner. | spaceman_2020 wrote: | The lack of housing in gigantic states like California is | baffling to me as someone who comes from an incredibly | densely populated country. | JoeJonathan wrote: | I find it hugely frustrating, but it's not that | complicated. Ever since prop 13 passed in 1978, | homeowners' property tax has been pegged to the purchase | price rather than the assessed value, creating a huge | disincentive to sell. In a place like LA, most or all of | the habitable land has been developed. The lots that are | undeveloped (at least those in my neighborhood) are | sketchy--steep grades and sandy soil, which will | eventually crumble either due to a megastorm or | earthquake. No one wants to sell to developers, and why | would they? They live in nice houses that get more | valuable every year, in a nice part of the country with | nice weather. Beyond that, they oppose every housing | development imaginable, usually by arguing that "luxury | condos" are replacing "rare green spaces." (There's a | whole "Save Poppy Peak" campaign near me, which is | infuriating, because it's a bunch of people with $1.5 | million+ houses who don't want apartments to get in the | way of their view.) | | There are all sorts of obvious political fixes to this | (repeal prop 13, end single-family zoning, incentivize | building mixed-use, mixed-income residences, whatever), | but I can't imagine any passing any time soon. Homeowners | have all the power, fight all these changes tooth and | nail (often through lawsuits against developers on | environmental protection grounds) at the local level. | TulliusCicero wrote: | It's very _technically_ simple. Humans have been building | housing, dense housing even, for millennia. Yes, standards | are higher now, but we also have technological | improvements. | | The challenge is nearly always _political_ in nature: a lot | of vested interests want to go out of their way to make it | harder to build more housing. | [deleted] | _dain_ wrote: | we somehow managed to build houses for thousands of years, | so it can't be that hard, can it? the scarcity is entirely | artificial. | nemo44x wrote: | Historically most people didn't live in single family | homes. They lived in very crowded, multi-generational and | small dwellings connected to many neighbors. Shared | public spaces were used for getting together, etc. Most | dwellings did not have kitchens, etc. Our idea of a home | for "regular people" is radically different than what | people have lived in. | | People need to probably drastically limit what they think | of when they think of affordable housing. Think multi- | family homes where each dwelling supports 4 people and is | < 800 sq-feet. 1 bathroom, 1 communal area (w/ small | range + table) and 2 bedrooms. | | Look to the disposable homes of Japan I guess. | _dain_ wrote: | or you could just legalize building anything other than | single family dwellings. there's a lot of room in between | quarter acre lot suburbia, and a crowded favela! look up | "missing middle housing". the problem is purely a matter | of restrictive zoning. | notch656a wrote: | The physical building of houses and even raising the | capital to buy the materials and labor to build some sort | of house capable of housing people, is not anywhere near | the choke point in California. Eliminate the zoning and | building inspectors and associated enforcement mechanisms | and the houses would pop up. | | I guarantee if California said tomorrow, "build what you | like on your land, there will be no permits required!" | People would flock to build on the land. Whether the | dangers of that outweighs the dangers of homelessness and | high price families spend on rent that makes healthcare, | healthy food, and education less affordable, is an exercise | for the reader. | [deleted] | samatman wrote: | Ah yes, California, where a developer in Berkeley spent 12 | years fighting the city to build a six-story apartment | building, which was then built in | | six weeks. People were moving in three months after | breaking ground. | rcarmo wrote: | Nope. Zoning and licensing is in the hands of politicians and | construction lobbies vying for the best places to build high- | value housing, which is where they get the most return. | WheatM wrote: | capableweb wrote: | > The nice thing about indoor space is that we can make | pretty much as much of it as we'd like. | | What? Have you ever been in Lisbon? The city is pretty dense | as it is. You could mostly just build higher, and that has | its limits too, depending on the structure and foundation. | | Adding more housing outside the core of the city might not be | attractive enough. And increasing the density of people also | means you need to increase the density of services (public | and private) and utilities, which also comes with its own | problem. | epolanski wrote: | Even outside it. | | Took a train to Sintra, there were endless and endless 6 | story-miles long buildings forever. Portugal seems insanely | dense. | renewiltord wrote: | Have you been to San Francisco? | | Lisbon: 100.05 km^2 , 544k people | | San Francisco: 121.48 km^2, 873k people | | 20% more room than Lisbon, 60% more people. | FerociousTimes wrote: | Why does everyone want to live in Lisbon? | | There are other decent metropolises in Portugal and other | fun spots around the country not to get crammed in the | capital. | the_gipsy wrote: | That's where job opportunities are, and that's why more | housing will increase the opportunities, and then the | price of housing... | asah wrote: | lol Lisbon is crowded. | | Lisbon: 6,452/km2 | | Barcelona: 16,000/km2 | | NYC: 25,000+/km2 (depends on the source) | | Lower East Side NYC: 33,600/km2 - due to zoning regs, there | are very few buildings over 9 stories... but _every_ | building is 9 stories! | | Lower East Side NYC 1910: 144,000+/km2 - visit | https://www.tenement.org/ to learn more. | | Kowloon Walled City, 1970s: ~2M/km2 !!! - inspiring 1000s | of dystopian Sci Fi stories from Akira to Blade Runner. | https://www.google.com/search?q=Kowloon+Walled+City | | http://demographia.com/db-nyc-sector1800.htm | jahnu wrote: | District I live in Vienna, Austria | | 25,000/km2 | | It's pretty quiet too! :) | spaniard89277 wrote: | You can induce demand too. Somehow they'll have to limit that | demand. | ephbit wrote: | Yeah, Portugal should simply tear down all the old mouldy | buildings of Lisbon and replace them with shiny skyscrapers, | so each and every Portuguese can have their very own flat in | Lisbon. | | Or if they're crazy enough to want to keep these old | buildings they could just build all the skycrapers in the | park surrounding peak Monsanto, easy. | | /s | TulliusCicero wrote: | The purpose of housing is to house people. | | Historical buildings are nice, but for apartment blocks at | least, yes, the priority has to be actually housing people. | You can always require historical-looking facades if looks | are a concern. | TulliusCicero wrote: | How this usually works: | | "I'd do anything for lower housing prices!" | | Build more housing. | | "...but I won't do that." | stavros wrote: | Greece has the exact same problem. Rents are skyrocketing | and people can't afford to live in their own cities. We're | building more housing, but it doesn't seem to be helping. | | Maybe SF doesn't want to build more housing, but this isn't | universal. | TulliusCicero wrote: | My experience with most people saying "we _are_ building | more housing " is that they drastically overestimate how | much housing is getting built, especially relative to | yesteryear. If you look at net increase in units YoY, | it's usually quite modest even for booming, "in-demand" | areas. | | The other part is that the same things that make it | slower to build more housing also make it more expensive, | all the various bureaucratic processes. | pyb wrote: | It's probably not enough new housing is getting built. | People don't even remember what a real large-scale | housing spree looks like, because these last happened | generations ago. These are transformative events. eg in | Athens in the 1950s-1970s : | https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20191011-the- | surprising-... | robertlagrant wrote: | Meatloaf as an authoritarian city councillor. Seems legit. | spaceman_2020 wrote: | This seems to be a problem everywhere around the world in big | cities. | | What's propping all of these property prices up? Supply and | demand rules don't seem to apply at all. You might have | thousands of empty apartments in a city yet the price only | keeps going up. | | Everything is broken, but housing is particularly broken. | woodpanel wrote: | > What's propping all of these property prices up? | | Money printing, first and foremost | pyb wrote: | The problem is always not allowing more housing to get built. | andrekandre wrote: | what would happen to land prices if they did that? | buscoquadnary wrote: | I've been thinking about this I think it is the end result of | globalization. First we could ship stuff overseas, then we | could ship jobs overseas, now people are realizing they can | ship their house overseas, and Portugal has a much nicer | climate and weather than Shanghai so why not move there. | Basically with the advent of the internet and the rise in | remote work there's no more reason people really feel tied to | a place, so in the most desirable places in the world you are | no longer just competing against the people in your state or | country, that real estate is now on the global market against | 7 billion other people. | spaceman_2020 wrote: | Feels that way too. America's increasingly tough stance on | exports to China are a sign of things to come. | | I'm not even sure if this Globalization was worth all that | much. It's made some people very wealthy, some people well- | off, but its also made lots of people very poor and very | angry. | | I'm okay with living in a world with fewer millionaires but | also fewer people sleeping on the streets. | buscoquadnary wrote: | Actually I listened to an interesting talk yesterday by | Peter Zeihan, just discovered he has some interesting | ideas. One of his theories is that the reason we have | globalization isn't economic but it was rather America's | attempt to win and keep allies during the cold war. You | could participate in a global world trade network and | economy (kept safe and maintained by American military | might) as long as you were willing to work within the US | framework. After the end of the Cold War the original | purpose for globalization has disappeared and now we have | to figure out what is next. | | It was an interesting argument that globalization was an | American security development not an international | economic development. | epolanski wrote: | In Rome, Italy, we have an estimated 150k empty apartments in | a 2.9 millions people city...that we know of..yet they build | and build and prices keep going up. | stuaxo wrote: | Where does this end? | | A planet full of empty "luxury apartments" and most of us | homeless? | NoLinkToMe wrote: | > or example, if you own three ordinary apartments in Lisbon, | you can live in one of them and easily make a good living by | renting out the other two as holiday apartments. Because | cleaning services, guys who do repairs, etc., are cheap in | Portugal, this involves almost no work. Moreover, the net worth | of your property will continually increase while you do | (almost) nothing. | | I'm a bit conflicted on this. I definitely see what you're | saying (and often repeat it myself). | | But it should be noted: property is simply an asset like any | other. If there's easy and outsized returns to be had, the | demand for this asset would increase, pushing up the price to | the point that the returns on the asset are in line with | returns of other assets which have similar risk/effort | profiles. | | To say that one can make money 'doing nothing' owning any asset | (that has a positive return) is true. But that's not per se | some kind of economic or political problem, it's a normal | feature. | | Of course to absolutely do nothing and still earn enough to | live off of, means you must have earned enough money to | purchase a large amount of assets. Supposing rental income of | 5%, and supposing rent is 25% of someone's wages, and supposing | a 20% tax rate on your returns, you'd essentially need to | purchase assets worth 100 times what someone spends on rent. | | (ex: if you need 40k to live on, spend 25% or 10k on rent, | you'd need 100x that or 1 million returning a 5% return that's | taxed 20%, leaving 40k in net income.) | | Amassing 100x your rent is no easy feat, and in fact it means | that someway, somehow, you've provided 100x your rent in value, | without spending a penny of it, and saved it all, then poured | it into an asset (incurring risk and requiring some level of | commercial effort), and then, yes, you could start to approach | doing 'nothing'. | | For many that's a life's worth of work. Buying such assets is | really no different from putting in an equivalent amount of | money into a retirement fund, and that fund in turn buying | assets like companies. Whether it's companies that buy and rent | out cars, or real estate, or produce and sell, the people | owning these enterprises through their retirement fund are | 'doing nothing' while others are working. | | But the important part to note is that anyone has access to | this system. Every person can, proportionate to their income | (based on their economic value to society) buy assets. | | In fact, I'm able with a click of the button not to just buy a | part of a in Portugal, but rather the biggest and most | successful company on the planet: Apple. I can buy a small part | in it, and profit when many of the planet's smartest and most | educated people build & sell some of the most cutting edge | consumer technology day in day out. Whilst doing: nothing. | | So I don't really see a structural problem with this system. | What is problematic is the stuff around it. For example, in | some countries real estate goes untaxed and is subsidised, and | is bailed out when things go bad. Subsidised private profits, | and socialised public losses. It's unfair and a failure of | markets and governance. Another example is that swathes of | people indeed inherit value to the point they've never done any | contribution to the world to get into a position to 'do | nothing', rather than work to retire off of the fruits of their | labour, they could in effect retire from work before ever even | starting. This is where the system breaks down and must be | balanced, again by e.g. taxing inheritance and balancing things | out. | | Finally, markets work when price & profit signals can balance | supply & demand. If there is a shortage of bread, demand | outpaces supply, the price rises, and overnight new bakeries | will pop up bringing down the price. In real estate high prices | often do not trigger new supply in many countries, either due | to geographical limitations (e.g. the mountains of Taiwan | limiting buildable space, or simply the fact physically there | is a limited area we consider to be 'downtown new york' for | example), but more often due to political limitations | (NIMBYism). Because in real estate markets in many areas do not | naturally solve the problem, government intervention is needed | to ensure more equitable and fair outcomes moreso than in other | types of markets. Again here I see a role for stronger taxation | on outsized profits and some income support for groups | otherwised pushed out of neighbourhoods. | tluyben2 wrote: | What a nonsense article ; this applies to every country in the | most popular cities. | Victerius wrote: | Unsustainable. If you're a wealthy individual living in an | expensive residence surrounded by other wealthy individuals | living in expensive residences, you still need garbagemen to | collect your garbage. You still need food. Whether you order from | local restaurants staffed by employees, or buy your groceries at | the supermarket, staffed by employees, janitorial personnel, | security guards, and managers, you're still relying on the labor | of ordinary people. | | If your power goes out or there is a water leak in your home, you | need an electrician or a plumber. Preferably one who doesn't have | to live five hours away. If you need an ambulance and medical | attention, you need doctors, nurses, and medical personnel. | Hopefully they didn't get priced out of a 50 mile radius of your | home. | | And if the world consisted of only millionaires and an army of | robots, if everyone is a millionaire, no one is. A carton of milk | would just cost $700 and a lower end house $30M. | | Be a YIMBY. Embrace looser zoning regulations and more and denser | housing where you live. And don't jack up the rent to market | rates if you're already turning a profit. | josefresco wrote: | Apparently the wealthy with vacation homes on Cape Cod didn't | get your memo. Our local businesses don't have enough workers | due to unattainable housing. Enjoy your long lines, reduced | hours and hollow communities! At least there will be lots of | pickleball courts! | foogazi wrote: | > Our local businesses don't have enough workers due to | unattainable housing. | | due to not paying enough | josefresco wrote: | There is no workforce. It's not a matter of paying more, | it's a lack of workers aka families. The average age of | someone living on Cape Cod has increased every year for | decades. The cost of housing after COVID went from | "unreasonable" to "insane". | | Local businesses and towns are _throwing_ money at the few | young people still here in an attempt to recruit workers | but there just isn 't enough to handle the scale up for | summer volume. The band-aid for years was J1 workers but | it's no longer enough. | | The wealthy don't think about Cape Cod for 1 second once | they cross the canal, or leave the runway in | Hyannis/MV/Nantucket. They seemingly don't realize that | their "tax dollars" which they claim are a gift to the | local region, aren't helping or solving any of these | problems. | | What we're seeing now is consolidation of businesses, and | the construction of worker "dormitory" housing. That's the | future for our region. Multi-million dollar trophy homes, | and worker dormitories. | [deleted] | bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: | If California urban centers like SF and LA are any example - | the "sustainable" limit is somewhere around two-three hours | away. | frenchy wrote: | That's only sustainable for now because car fuel is cheap. | It's not guaranteed to stay that way. | consp wrote: | In Europe it isn't, so that 2h number goes down very | rapidly. | gregoriol wrote: | If a place has only millionaires, prices for many basic things | will be very high compared to other places, like for plumbers: | there will be less plumbers and those willing to go there will | be able to raise prices, a lot. Same for groceries, cleanup, | ... | notch656a wrote: | San Francisco solved it with homeless camps and effectively | decriminalizing theft under $950. | elforce002 wrote: | My God. Really?! | LatteLazy wrote: | Of course, all those people can live 50 miles away and commute | in and out every day... | andrepd wrote: | > Be a YIMBY. Embrace looser zoning regulations and more and | denser housing where you live. And don't jack up the rent to | market rates if you're already turning a profit. | | Eh. Waiting for people to forgo short-term profit from the | goodness of their hearts under capitalism is a losing battle. | The _system_ must be built to prevent such behaviours and | outcomes, rather than relying on individual good-will. | bhupy wrote: | I mean, by that logic, waiting for people to choose to vote | in such a manner that changes _the system_ (from the goodness | of their hearts, no less) is a losing battle also. Remember, | changing _the system_ (whatever that means) involves the same | democratic buy-in as loosening zoning regulations. | | Ultimately, the only way to change to change things under a | democratic process is to win hearts and minds, and in either | approach, people will have to make hard decisions. Either | it's forgoing short-term profit by loosening zoning | regulations or forgoing even long term profit by enacting | whatever large scale systemic change one envisions will solve | the problem (strict price controls, rationing, expropriation, | etc). | zozbot234 wrote: | It's not really unsustainable - Switzerland and other wealthy | microstates show us the long-term outcome, which is quite | desirable. In fact, the "ordinary people" will eventually | benefit the most, since their wages will grow to match the | prevalent cost of living. Transition can of course be | difficult. | aprdm wrote: | How big is Switzerland population? | MagnumOpus wrote: | The same as Portugal's, very roughly. (Or the same as the | greater Bay Area if you wish.) So the point is applicable. | polotics wrote: | Switzerland does not qualify as a microstate at all. You're | looking at a population that would fill Los Angeles, twice | over... The one thing that is sure is public transportation | is night and day, and this helps a lot fight the mad-commute | effect for non-millionaires. | joshlemer wrote: | Not twice over, Swiss population is 8-9 million. 10 million | live in LA. | [deleted] | motohagiography wrote: | Some Canadian cities responded to this with a foreign buyers tax, | notably in Vancouver. Florida has a method for balancing its | "snowbird" population to do with foreign buyers. Personally, I | think this is the effect of governments themselves no longer | believing in nations and borders or a responsibility for them, | and simply importing polarized populations of both very rich and | very poor people whose effect in concert squeezes out the middle | who made the country desirable. The cynicism comes from the 90's | where multinationals globalized and just became financial rails | for stateless revenue flows, and now governments saw the | opportunities and are globalizing their constituencies, where if | they want to stay in power, all they need is money and votes that | come from importing wealthy people in exchange for buying Gold | visas and "donations," and poor people to depend on their | extractive policies. What we're watching is the intentional | dissolution of the nation state and replacement of relatively | equal populations with polarized ones. It's barely right/left at | all, it's just nihilistic power as its own end. | danans wrote: | > Personally, I think this is the effect of governments | themselves no longer believing in nations and borders or a | responsibility for them, and simply importing polarized | populations of both very rich and very poor people | | > It's barely right/left at all, it's just nihilistic power as | its own end. | | These statements are skillfully leaving out "ethno" part of | nationalism. Once you add that quite obviously real and active | element back, it's very much a left/right difference. | | The left's solution to the problems brought about by | globalization is to subtly bias the scales of re- | industrialization policies toward the domestic labor market - | evidenced by things like the battery materials sourcing and | assembly location requirements, and income limits of the | recently passed EV tax credits. | | The right's solution to this has been playing on fears of a | purported invasion by non-white citizens from lower income | countries. A decade ago that would have been a controversial | claim to make about the right, but today's right openly | proclaims those ideas. | | Portugal's case is interesting because they lived under a | nationalist dictatorship that only ended in 1968, so many | people alive today remember living under that. In my travel | there, I found that many people in the age groups that vote | heavily conservatively in the US and UK instead vote democratic | left as a result of their lived memories of nationalist | dictatorship. | | Portugal does need to figure out what else has to offer the | world economically in addition to great weather and beautiful | cities and countryside, in order to have a better balance of | trade, but it's unrealistic to think it can do that while | shutting down immigration. | motohagiography wrote: | The "ethno-" in nationalism isn't silent or implied though. | Canada has been a very heterogeneous nation for over a | century, Israel is also very heterogeneous where people are | bound by religion and not ethnicity, France and Spain have a | huge and integrated north african populations and they are | French and Spanish, full stop. Brazil, also a nation with as | much global diversity as is available. This trope that | nations as entities are somehow racist is more an artifact of | the critical theory that calls everything racist by default, | and not of how people actually live together. | danans wrote: | > This trope that nations as entities are somehow racist is | more an artifact of the critical theory that calls | everything racist by default | | The existence and electoral success of major ethno- | nationalist political organizations like Front National in | France, the US Republican party, and Fidesz in Hungary are | hard evidence that the "ethno" is essential to contemporary | nationalism, just as it was to nationalism during the first | half of the 20th century. These are all countries with very | fraught recent histories of internal ethnic conflict | between their own citizens. | | Stoking grievances over the increased diversity of those | countries in recent decades is precisely what their ethno- | nationalists run on, and even the few who claim to separate | the "ethno" from the nationalism still support ethno- | nationalist candidates and leaders because they get votes, | so it's a distinction without a practical difference. | zozbot234 wrote: | > ... Stoking grievances over the increased diversity of | those countries ... | | The underlying grievance is of course not over "increased | diversity" per se but rather the long-term decline in | civic attitudes. The progressive left expresses the exact | same concerns in a different wording, by decrying the | increased "marginalization and exclusion" that's | seemingly entailed by such diversity. Guess what: they're | all looking at pretty much the same thing. | danans wrote: | > The underlying grievance is of course not over | "increased diversity" per se but rather the long-term | decline in civic attitudes. | | I fail to see how the previous US president's complaints | about people coming from "s*hole countries" and the | exhortations from the Charlottesville rioters about how | "Jews will not replace us" are grievances about "decline | in civic attitudes". Try as one may to dissociate them, | but these are the faces, words, and animating motivation | of nationalism today. | zozbot234 wrote: | The sad truth is that Jews have always been used as a | convenient scapegoat for grievances of all kinds, and | this is just as true on the left as on the nationalist | right. For example, Marx famously blamed the rise of | bourgeois capitalism on the Jews, and this casual anti- | Semitism was picked up by many on the left. | danans wrote: | > this is just as true on the left as on the nationalist | right. For example, Marx famously blamed the rise of | bourgeois capitalism on the Jews | | Your argument is intentionally mixing "is" with "was". | | Marx died 140 years ago, and there are no ethno- | nationalist voices of significance on the left today. In | the US context, after the civil rights movement of the | 20th century those people left the Democratic party as | the parties realigned themselves. | | Today it is largely a right wing phenomenon, carrying | forward the tradition of right wing ethno-nationalism | that persisted from the previous century. | jhbadger wrote: | Whether or not Jewishness is completely an ethnicity is | debatable, but a very large number of Israelis (and Jews | across the world in general) aren't religious at all -- | they see their Jewishness as being defined by their | ancestors who were practicing Jews rather than by their own | beliefs. | sieabahlpark wrote: | jdmg94 wrote: | Vancouver is a disaster in housing affordability, economic | opportunities (outside of real estate), and they have a very | big and public homeless crisis. | jollybean wrote: | Homelessness and home prices are actually separate problems, | even though they feel linked, they are barely so. | | You can have a relatively affordable city like Montreal and | still a lot of homelessness. | zozbot234 wrote: | They're very closely linked problems. The easiest way to | solve homelessness is to give the homeless a place they can | call home. Which is a lot cheaper if housing is already in | abundant supply. | huevosabio wrote: | Just build more. If foreigners want to buy overseas property, | then just increase the supply. | | Oh, and tax the unimproved value of land and give the proceeds | to the Portuguese citizens. This will dampen the effect while | supply of housing matches demand. | jcfrei wrote: | Absolutely now way that the "votes that come from importing | wealthy people [...]" are going to be enough to get politicians | elected - not enough wealthy people in the world. The real risk | is the continued rise of populism which will result in cynical | policies rather than real solutions for dealing with the | increasing wealth gap. | klabb3 wrote: | Yeah, not to mention that people on visas can't vote. It's | definitely a flaw in the causality chain, but at the same | time I empathize with the frustration of the Portuguese | people. | kipchak wrote: | Not directly, but a extremely wealthy person without a vote | who can make campaign donations directly or indirectly | arguably has a larger impact than the average voter. For | example 90% of house seats go to the person who spent the | most, though causation isn't necessarily always the case.[1] | | [1]https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections- | a-c... | bengalister wrote: | Truly agree. | | There are also countries like France which only imported cheap | and poor labor. France never tried or even discouraged rich | people to settle in the country with punitive taxes (compared | to our neighbors and other western world countries). For | instance London has (or had) rich Russians/Indians/Pakistani | investors who made London their residence, not the case for | Paris, foreign real estate owners don't take French permanent | residency. | | And nowadays, we are left with some politicians who promote | economic immigration even when there is no need or deny any | form of control on illegal immigration mostly to import voters. | rmbyrro wrote: | The Portuguese case is quite different, I think. | | Canada has a well-developed and diversified economy. Portugal | needs to import a lot from the world, but has very little to | offer in exchange. | | They found something: their real estate and city center spaces. | | The country NEEDS this foreign income. It's not a self- | sustainable economy and the world won't work for them for free. | If the Portuguese want to solve this issue, one way is to study | what else could they develop internally that would be | attractive in the world trade market. | | Also, foreigners are looking for the European passport, not for | Portugal per se. If Portugal were to follow UK's path, demand | for their Golden Visa would drop dramatically. | | It doesn't benefit the rich, only. By raising real estate | prices, it stimulates the construction business, which is labor | intensive and has a long supply chain. It benefits the entire | economy of the country. | jollybean wrote: | Instead of selling their land, they can lease it, with a | heavy tax on top. | 0x457 wrote: | Foreigners buying land there are because it gives them a | path to European passport or at very least nearly instant | permanent residency. Not because they want to live in | Portugal. Portugal requirement is "just" EUR280,000 which | is extremely low - their neighbor's, Spain, requirement is | EUR500,000. | | Whichever country has "good" real-estate prices and golden | visa requirements to match will have foreigners buyers. | petre wrote: | > The country NEEDS this foreign income. | | It's just parking money. It's the last thing a socialist | country like Portugal needs, because it screws up the real | estate market making housing unafordable to the general | population, who lives, works there, pays taxes and maybe has | kids. What they can do is tax all property as if one is | renting it, like Switzerland does and use the 6 month median | rent as the tax base. | HPsquared wrote: | If parking money is the problem, I guess an indirect | solution would be to give people other places to park their | money. | stjohnswarts wrote: | do the people moving there not pay taxes, work there, and | raise kids also? I think I'm missing the point. It's simple | to solve it by making foreigners pay much higher annual | taxes on the privilege to live there and capping real | estate prices for locals vs foreigners. Prevent foreigners | from actually being able to buy real estate. Then everyone | wins. | petre wrote: | Not really, they're either retired or buying property to | park money, like the rich Chinese are doing in Vancouver | and Auckland. The issue is that they already bought real | estate and drove the prices up, so now is the perfect | time to extract taxes from them. | | The Lisbon downtown is cruise ship territory anyhow, I | fully understand why a group of youths was protesting | against (those kind of) tourists. They treat every city | like it's a theme park. | vannevar wrote: | >By raising real estate prices, it stimulates the | construction business, which is labor intensive and has a | long supply chain. It benefits the entire economy of the | country. | | Maybe, but only if the increase in wages paid keeps up with | the rising rents. And remember that in unregulated | capitalism, most of the income from increased economic | activity is captured by the wealthiest tiers, with only | negligible increases for the vast majority. The rising tide | indeed raises all boats, but it raises some boats far more | than most. If rent rises 10% but median wages rise only 2%, | most people will be losing ground, not gaining. | caycep wrote: | The question in my mind is how can a country like Portugal | grow something home grown, industry/economy wise to | ameliorate this situation? | | Ukraine had traditional industries but it seems like the | IT/knowledge worker base they built up over the past 5-10 | years seems to be softening some of the economic blows of the | war for them, but I can't imaging IT is the answer to every | country... | zozbot234 wrote: | It's not just Ukraine. Central and Eastern Europe in | general has seen plenty of sustained growth. You just need | the right policy attitude for it, which has historically | been quite problematic in places like Portugal (see "The | incredible shrinking Portuguese firm" for one especially | clear example). | andrepd wrote: | Unfortunately education in Portugal is one of the worst in | Europe. It would need a massive investment with a visionary | direction to start to see results 15 years later. 4-year | terms do not lend themselves well to long-term national | projects like that. | | Ironically, excellent education might be one of the most | positive legacies the Communist regimes left to Eastern | European countries, and part of why countries like Estonia | or Poland will be better poised in the near future. | park777 wrote: | Incorrect. Education in Portugal was one of the worst in | Europe. | | Portugal is the only country in the OECD that has | consistently risen in PISA scores since their inception | in 2000. | | Portugal was bottom of the table in 2000, and now it's at | middle. Not the best, but not the worst either. | | Source: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-0 | 30-59031-4_... | asdff wrote: | They could start building housing | prmoustache wrote: | I read somewhere that there was a raise in bicycle | factories in Portugal. Some euro companies are attractee by | the idea of being able to put a made/assembled in europe | label while keeping labour cost low, avoid asian supply | issues and portugal provides that. | pdpi wrote: | Portuguese IT is pretty good in general, and that could | easily have been part of the solution. The problem is that | there was a large exodus of talent in the early 2010s | (including yours truly), and that has caused some serious | brain drain. | brabel wrote: | The company I work for has 3 devs in Portugal, working | remotely... good people, very skilled, and it's much more | affordable to pay them well compared to their local | market than trying to hire locally, even if locally (more | expensive European country), salaries are still a far cry | from those of the USA, let alone Silicon Valley. With | remote becoming widespread, it's hard to believe Silicon | Valley is still willing to pay so much more money for | devs than hire remote workers in Portugal and numerous | other countries with high education and infrastructure, | but much, much lower salaries. | pkaye wrote: | > With remote becoming widespread, it's hard to believe | Silicon Valley is still willing to pay so much more money | for devs than hire remote workers in Portugal and | numerous other countries with high education and | infrastructure, but much, much lower salaries. | | In the US there are 50 states to choose from for remote | workers. And then outside that is the rest of North/South | America all within a narrow time zone band. | iostream25 wrote: | I remember Passos Coelho suggesting that the young will | need to emigrate for work, circa the time of the | crisis/austerity. | pdpi wrote: | Yup. So I did. | motohagiography wrote: | I think maintaining distinctiveness as a country is the | best possible economic security, instead of turning it into | an airport mall of fast food chains and crappy condos. | France has maintained this somewhat, but not without a lot | of struggle. Globalized chains create a radical monopoly in | the cities they are in because they reduce the amount of | risk/reward for local entrepreneurs, and require high | amounts of capital to start. It's why downtown SF is such a | cultural desert of basic and Times Square is just a theme | park to itself. The policies that encourage globalized | businesses create a homogenization that makes the desirable | diversity that emerges organically impossible. | | Portugal could impose a foreign buyers tax, use it's | egalitarian/socialistic political culture to incentivise | some small-n natalism, and leverage the unbelievable | cultural resources it has as somewhere that is a respite | from the blob of tourists that it has allowed to imbalance | its economy. | | It's not so much IT that would change the economy, but | honestly - math. It's the only real social advantage that a | country can organize to leverage, and the next country that | triples down on its math education investment is going to | be the next power base. Given what I've seen there that the | article captures perfectly, it's probably their only hope. | outworlder wrote: | > The question in my mind is how can a country like | Portugal grow something home grown, industry/economy wise | to ameliorate this situation? | | They are looking to expand their maritime territory. They | might have a credible claim to it. | rmbyrro wrote: | Look at Singapore, for example. Its situation was orders of | magnitude worse than Portugal decades ago. Now they are | probably twice as better. | | The key is: stop complaining about "the rich is this, the | rich is that" and start thinking about how to be | competitive in the 21st century. There are many | opportunities, but are Portuguese citizens interested in | taking the effort and sacrifice to explore them? The answer | to this question is the real explanation for the hard time | they're going through, not "rich-blaming". | notch656a wrote: | Singapore's public housing is propped up by the fact that | they have a huge proportion of their population that are | totally ineligible for it, but pay the taxes to support | it. I think something like only 60% of Singapore has the | citizenship or correct criteria of permanent residency to | obtain public housing. | | If the US can put 40% of its working populace into some | lower-rights having class, like strip their citizenship, | we would have a comparable public housing tax base. | rmbyrro wrote: | I'm not talking about how real estate works there, but | how they became a sophisticated and highly competitive | economy in a few decades. | [deleted] | notch656a wrote: | May want to go back and delete your comments about real | estate then. Honestly without exploiting foreigners to | subsidize their housing, these tag line here would | probably just as likely be "Singaporeans Can No Longer | Afford to Live in Singapore." | | If you live in an advanced urban economy, with relatively | open borders and free market real estate, you have to get | with the program or get forced out. You can argue that's | a good thing, or a bad thing. | | ------------- | | >Why is this exploitation? The country is offering a lot | of positive things to foreigner | | Pretty unsophisticated logic here. The idea that | something good was obtained, therefore a policy can't be | exploitive, is on face absolutely an unfounded and absurd | claim. | rmbyrro wrote: | Are foreigners kept there against their will? | | I bet they're happy to live there, despite the housing | costs. | | Why is this exploitation? The country is offering a lot | of positive things to foreigners. I'd love to have a | Singaporean passport and be able to live there if I could | afford. | | May want to keep your comment deletion considerations to | yourself. | fn-mote wrote: | The situation in Singapore is different. The foreigners | are not high-income people who chose to live there. Only | about 28% are skilled labor. The foreigners _may_ be | happy to live there but I wouldn't make that assumption | without checking. Just because it's better than their | alternative doesn't mean it's good, or even acceptable. | | Source: | | > [immigrants population is] 1.23 million, out of which | about 351 thousand were classified as skilled labor. Most | of the foreign workforce [...is employed...] in | construction and the service industry, or as domestic | help. | | -- https://www.statista.com/statistics/698035/singapore- | number-... | speakfreely wrote: | > If the US can put 40% of its working populace into some | lower-rights having class, like strip their citizenship, | we would have a comparable public housing tax base. | | The US is already working on this, albeit | unintentionally. | | Undocumented immigrants were at 3.3% of the population in | 2016 and the numbers have absolutely exploded since the | beginning of the Biden administration, with 2 million | apprehensions _so far_ for in 2022 [0]. The cumulative | effect of this over just a single term of the Biden | administration will completely reshape the demographics | of most of the border states (and most major cities of | the country), as the majority of immigrants are arriving | with very little means, extremely limited ability to | speak English, and will be mostly restricted from | accessing the US financial system without legal residence | status, hobbling them financially and forcing them into | informal work arrangements. | | [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/illegal-immigration- | arrests-hit... | lovich wrote: | A record number of arrests can mean there is a record | number of immigrants but does not guarantee that is the | cause. Increased enforcement of the border would also | lead to higher arrests and subsequently reduce the inflow | of immigration | stjohnswarts wrote: | MAGAs are blaming this on Biden rather than on | deteriorating political situations all through Mexico, | Central, and South America lol. It's a lot easier to | blame the president tho. | notch656a wrote: | Undocumented immigrants _tend_ to be an overall good for | the citizen economy since we can exploit them, charge | them sales tax etc, and then not offer them public | services in return. Hopefully the cheap construction | labor will improve the housing situation in the US. | rootos wrote: | Undocumented immigrants have the same access to public | services such as public education, medical care at | hospitals, access to court systems, police, fire, etc. | lovich wrote: | Undocumented immigrants have access to the court system | and police that will arrest them the moment they are | found to be undocumented? Even if they ostensibly could | use it they would avoid taking the risk | dr_dshiv wrote: | Good drug policy, car-less urbanity, and a good tech scene. | With California weather and 1/5 the cost? Sounds great. | When can I move? | jseliger wrote: | Portugal should just do what the U.S. and Canada should also | do: built more housing: | https://slate.com/business/2013/05/exporting-housing- | service.... | | It's not hard! We knew how to build a lot of housing on a | particular parcel a hundred years ago. | _whiteCaps_ wrote: | I remember travelling to Portugal in the early 2000's and | our host describing Portugal's national bird as the | (construction) crane. Not sure if the pun translates well | to other languages. Are they not still doing that? | tffcccdredf wrote: | DrNosferatu wrote: | I disagree, Portugal does offer something interesting: | | Cheap labor. | | In fact, some of the cheapest in the EU - both qualified and | non. It even can be said that the current Portuguese Economic | Model is intra-EU salary dumping. | | (and a lot of rent-seeking) | blfr wrote: | I do think that a state should exist primarily for the benefit of | its citizens but this view had long been decried xenophobic at | best. | | However, you can't have it both ways. If | | > countless stories of flats left uninhabited by some rich person | who arrived at the building, bought two flats so that he could | get a visa, and doesn't even live there | | then clearly not | | > wealthy foreigners from all over the world, to whom we offer a | paradise where they enjoy the same services but where they don't | pay or pay less tax than the general population | | Either they live there and use services or not. | outworlder wrote: | Yeah, the article wants to argue both sides of every issue. | | However, | | > countless stories of flats left uninhabited by some rich | person who arrived at the building, bought two flats so that he | could get a visa, and doesn't even live there | | So, the way it works is, as a golden visa applicant, you have | to spend 7 days in the first year. The next 2 years, a combined | 15 days (which can be spread whichever way you like). | Subsequent renewals are different (21 days / 3 years). You can | already live there when you apply, but you are not _required_ | to. | | You have to maintain your investment for at least 5 years (or | until you become a permanent resident) and renew the golden | visa twice. Then you can apply for permanent residency (or | citizenship if you qualify), if you want to. | | It's entirely conceivable that people would buy property and | only vacation there. Which, if we are honest, is not a problem, | given that large cities are excluded from the program. And | cheaper housing does not qualify, either. So you would be | taking property that's pretty expensive already (EUR500,000, | EUR400,000 for low density areas) - OR requires the property to | be older than 30 years old, and a minimum of EUR350,000 (or | EUR280,000 in low density areas). | throwayyy479087 wrote: | swagasaurus-rex wrote: | Not contradictory at all - they buy property, sit on it, and | vacation there | iostream25 wrote: | No mention of the vast holdings the church or bombeiros have | in Lisbon and the insane amount of empty un-renovated | buildings that are essentially just place-holders until the | right CML-connected developers show-up with lots of money? | fsckboy wrote: | "Misery distributes itself throughout a system." | | High rents mean that a lot of people like a place enough that | they'll fight (economically) to live there. The fact that you've | lived in a place since before other people might feel like that | should entitle you to low rent, but it doesn't, that's not how | markets set prices. | | High rents are just once aspect of "unpleasantness", and people | will move around till the misery is equally distributed. | Economies ebb and flow and shift from place to place, so it the | process never ends, but don't be fooled, there is nothing broken | about systems of market real estate prices, in a sense they're | the final leveling of a system, the equalizer of all other | desires. | | It's like currency exchange rates, whichever way they go, there's | good an bad, can afford more foreign goods but nobody wants to | buy your goods, or can't afford foreign goods but can sell | exports. But there's nothing to "do" about exchange rates, accept | them as given and plan accordingly. | | Bad transportation problem in your city? Think the new public | works project is going to fix it? Think again, better | transportation makes for more efficient redistribution of misery. | | Now, I don't mean to sound negative: the redistribution of misery | is a leveling, like stock prices going up and down with every | trade, there is still a buyer who wants in and a seller who wants | out. The redistribution of misery always entails some people | getting less miserable. | epolanski wrote: | All your comment reminds me how disgusted I am at capitalism | and free market economy. | dogman144 wrote: | I don't know what's the correct approach with this. | | I'm a globe trotting engineer who understands globalism and what | access tech is opening up to it. I don't mean being a digital | nomad. Rather, tech is collapsing or expanding concepts of | borders, nationalism and so on in very meaningful ways. That's a | hugely compelling area to work in vs chasing an OKR for Google | ads. I don't think it's reversible, and I find a lot of value | personally and professionally from being in that space because | this is the rare moment where the world is changing and I'm in a | field directly involved with it. | | The other aspect is it's locals selling to the foreigners, and a | personally compelling reason to go there is urban areas of the | USA have screwed themselves up with the cost of living. I want to | participate in problems, not pay $5k/mo for a 2bdr in NYC or soon | Austin or Nashville so I can go to bars with other techies. So if | locals weren't selling at hugely inflated prices, I'd be firmly | in favor of that. So, look to the Portuguese neighbors selling | apartments first. | | But, no excuses - I see $500k 2 bdr in Lisbon and think that's a | chance to live in a world that is way too expensive and | commercialized in NYC. A local in Lisbon is getting hosed by that | and my mobility, no way around it. | | In short - am I part of the problem, what responsibilities do I | have vs the locals and govt policies about foreign purchases, do | my motivations matter at all vs the outcomes. | | I don't know yet, Hard to say, although it's good to face hard | facts via articles like this. Networked-globalism won't reverse, | and I think it's more likely the quiet parts of the world (rural | America, cheap Europe) are just going to go through some | transformations that can't be stopped and the symptoms look like | this article. | kipchak wrote: | I think the fundamental question is by what right does someone | have "right" to something like land or the buildings on it, by | the open market and wealth or by already living there? Neither | is really fair or equitable. But I worry what will happen as | more people start to feel (justifiably so) they're getting a | raw deal on both fronts. | dougmwne wrote: | The answer to your question is sovereignty and it is quite | settled by this point in global governance. Who has it and | who they gave it up to. As a republic, the citizens of | Portugal are sovereign and they have the right to decide who | gets to live where and for how much. The citizens can also | choose to give up their sovereignty to others (the EU, | globalism) or not exercise it (don't vote or don't hold their | officials accountable). | jollybean wrote: | It's the same everywhere. | | Vancouver, Toronto. | | Surpluses are being gathered by the global elite and they are | coming back to buy property the locals cannot afford and leave | the spaces underutilized and empty. | | How on god's green earth we allow our 'land' in urban areas - a | very valuable resource to be 'exported' while owners pay nary any | taxes ... is completely insane. | | We should basically ban foreign ownership, or, tax it heavily and | especially require domiciles to be either occupied or to have a | tax so that it 'gets occupied' at some rate. | haunter wrote: | >It's a case of saying that Portugal has been constantly for | sale. If in the recent past, large public companies were sold off | to Chinese managers who now do whatever they want -- like | Energias de Portugal (EDP), the main electricity company, which, | after making an exorbitant profit in the first semester of the | year, they're now saying that energy prices are going to go up | again -- now are private assets which are being bought out | | What a fucking disaster. Selling off national assets to foreign | investment groups. | | >China Three Gorges Corporation, a SOE, won in December 2011 the | bidding for the Portuguese government's 21.35% interest in the | company. The transaction is expected to be concluded by April | 2012. As of February 2014, just under 45% of the ownership of EDP | was controlled by five institutional shareholders. Amongst the | others were the Qatar Investment Authority and BlackRock. | | Qatar, China, BlackRock. Can't find a better bunch. | andrepd wrote: | Blame neoliberal ghouls which, as the saying goes, "never let a | good crisis go to waste". It was the perfect time to get public | assets from the Portugese state, Greek state, Spanish state, | etc, at a massive discount. A fire-sale of public goods, if you | will. Also, by the way, a great time to push policies which | made youth unemployment go to 30, 40, or even 50% (!), to get | those sweet qualified youths to go work as nurses, doctors, | engineers, in Germany, Netherlands, the UK, etc. | | Blame also the eagerly colaborationist Portuguese government | from 2011-2015. | jonathanstrange wrote: | That explains why they are building one generic luxury | apartment block after the other - and hostels, hostels, | hostels. It's insane. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-01 23:01 UTC)