• Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is not quite true. They don’t have a house. They rent a house at a different rate with different rules. For example should they be unable to pay their mortgage, the interest portion of which is pure rent, their house will be sold for them by their bank. This can occur if their mortgage is variable in an rising interest environment or if the economy tanks as a result of a housing crash, or because of the rising interest rates. So homeowners can and are affected by market crashes even if they don’t sell.

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        My example involves many people being forced to sell. That wasn’t the parent’s argument or at least I didn’t understand it this way. I think it made a point about voluntary sale. Otherwise they wouldn’t have said that vast majority of homeowners would be unaffected. I’m saying involuntary sales are a significant effect of housing market crashes. In fact involuntary sales might be required to have a market crash in the first place. If that’s true, a significant number of homeowners must be affected in order for a crash to occur.

      • snowe@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Their example was literally about them not selling. Maybe learn to read. They explicitly called out foreclosure by a bank where the bank takes their property back from the homeowner and sells it to reclaim the mortgage amount. That is not the homeowner selling.