This week?s TIME cover story makes the case that ?owning a home may no longer make economic sense.?
Early in Barbara Kiviat?s piece, we learn:
A house with a front lawn and a picket fence wasn’t just a nice place to live or a risk-free investment; it was a way to transform a nation.
Houses owned by the people who lived in them, we believed, created social and financial stability ? more involved citizens, safer neighborhoods, kids who did better in school. No wonder leaders of all political stripes wanted to spend more than $100 billion a year on subsidies and tax breaks to encourage people to buy.
What strikes me most about the quotation is the notion that homeownership could ?create? all of those laudable byproducts. Did any thoughtful person ever believe that idea? Owning a home will magically transform a person into a responsible member of society?
Think carefully about this topic, and you?re much more likely to come to the conclusion that the characteristics that used to be required to buy a home ? including having enough money to make a down payment and a livelihood that would enable you to cover monthly bills ? tend to correlate well with civic involvement, parental engagement, and a law-abiding lifestyle. In other words, homeownership reflects (or at least reflected) positive character traits; it doesn?t bring them into existence.
That?s why it seems so clear that government efforts to boost homeownership rates artificially were destined to fail.
