60

Why home ownership is U.S. obsession

Edmund Phelps, director of Columbia University's Center on Capitalism and Society.

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

TEXT OF INTERVIEW

Kai Ryssdal: So you grow up, get a good job, marry, you have a couple of kids, and buy a house. It's the American dream, right? But a lot people got in trouble chasing that last part and helped take the economy down with them. In today's installment of Taking Stock, our series of occasional conversations with people who can give us the longer view of our economic situation, Columbia University economist Edmund Phelps and American attitudes toward home ownership. Phelps says that dream of owning a house has been fueled, in large part, by the government.

EDMUND PHELPS: Democrats and Republicans have been very keen to make home ownership almost a national purpose. President Clinton got through Congress a 1997 act to force mortgage lenders to relax the conditions on loans for low-income people. And then there were tax breaks on capital gains and houses in 1998. But I have to say that it isn't just public policy. The banks, which used to have something to do with business lending, sorta of lost their expertise in that area, and they began to focus all their lending efforts on residential mortgages and other soft targets.

Ryssdal: Let me ask you this, though. Because if the government gets rid of the home-mortgage interest deduction, I for one will be extremely annoyed, and so will the 70 percent of Americans who own their own homes. I mean, it would be a sea change in the way we look at homes in this country.

PHELPS: Yes, it would be. But to me it makes a lot of sense. Because, look, this is a very funny kind of asset in which the owner of the asset gets the services of the asset -- the shelter and the comforts and so forth that the asset provides -- and at the same time, as if the owner was paying income tax on those services, the owner gets to deduct the mortgage costs.

Ryssdal: Is that a bad thing?

PHELPS: Yeah, to me that is quite crazy. There are only two logical ways to go: one is to deny mortgage-interest deductibility because no tax is being paid on the benefits, or start taxing the benefits.

Ryssdal: You're a renter, aren't you?

PHELPS: I am a renter, you caught me. But that's not why I have these positions. It just happens that I'm a renter.

Ryssdal: Well, when you live in New York City it can be tough to own, right?

PHELPS: Lots of us here in New York City are renters, yes. We're a very strange breed.

Ryssdal: Well, even though you've made peace with the idea of renting, for a lot of people it is a dirty word out there. I mean you have to make the rent every single month. You're just giving this check over to the land lord, and you're not getting anything out of it. Do me a favor and weigh the pros and cons of renting or not.

PHELPS: If you rent, that's it. You don't have to pay any interest to anybody. You don't have to pay any maintenance costs to anybody. You don't have to worry about whether the boiler is going to break down. While if you own your own home, you have a hundred aggravations. Maybe the roof will leak while you're overseas. In strict money terms, there is no reason to think there is a systematic, long-run, sustainable, durable difference between the two.

Ryssdal: Is this home-ownership obsession that we've had, has it affected the rest of our economic lives? Does it change the way we save? Does it change the way we spend in other regards?

PHELPS: Of course, while house prices were going up, that became a substitute for saving. People would refinance their homes, take the profit and spend that, hoping that prices would go up again. And then they would do the same thing and spend that. But I do think this home-ownership craze does tie in with a newfound fashion for spending rather than saving. I'm old enough to remember in the 1930s and the 1940s when thrift, frugality was considered an important virtue. In those days we all knew Benjamin Franklin's aphorism, "A penny saved is a penny earned." Today, the official doctrine seems to be that a penny spent is a penny earned.

Ryssdal: Do you think professor that there's a way to change the housing paradigm in this country? That it is the American dream, and if you have the material means, you ought to buy a house.

PHELPS: I'm hoping that the administration and other thought leaders will succeed eventually in bringing the country back to the older idea that the American dream is having a career, getting a job, and getting involved in it, and doing well. That was the core of the good life. That's what we have to get back to, and get away from this mystique that the most important thing in your life that could ever happen to you is to be a home owner.

Ryssdal: Edmund Phelps at Columbia University. Thanks so much for your time.

PHELPS: You're welcome. Good to be here.

Ryssdal: Edmund Phelps won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2006. He's the director of Columbia University's Center on Capitalism and Society.

Pages

Sandra Smith's picture
Sandra Smith - Mar 26, 2009

Mr. Edmunds is probably a renter because he lives in a rent controlled apartment near Columbia University and has paid nothing in rent for the last 30 years.

david rigby's picture
david rigby - Mar 26, 2009

Clearly, the Prof needs to get out of NYC.

Jarek Haftek's picture
Jarek Haftek - Mar 26, 2009

Perhaps Prof. Phelps is a truly free man. Either he is so wealthy that the sky is a limit on his road through his life, or his is so destitute that there is no material thing for him to carry with along his way. In any way, he is out of touch with most of us. We, the people, work our way out of servitude. For us, ownership of a homestead is one of the mayor steps towards freedom.
[How to make it easy to pronounce? Yarek Half-tech ? :-) ]

C Gawthrop's picture
C Gawthrop - Mar 26, 2009

I think Mr. Phelps needs to get out of the ivory tower and talk to some real people. We bought a house responsibly, not to spend money (see our 10-year-old car and all-second-hand baby toys) but because owning a house means something personally to millions of families like us. I want to plant whatever flowers I love because I "own" the yard. I want my baby daughter to be able to use crayon all over the walls without worrying about the landlord. From the beginning of time, people have wanted "a place to call my own." For millions of regular families, not the financial wizards that Phelps lives near in rented luxury apartments, this is why we want to own a modest home.

Danielle Barry's picture
Danielle Barry - Mar 26, 2009

If the goal of the interest tax credit is to encourage home ownership, why don't you get a credit for actually owning the house? The credit as it exists now creates an incentive to have more debt, not more equity. I think Professor Phelps point is that home "ownership" has been marketed as a symbol of responsibility and good citizenship, even when the bank is the one that owns the home. Owning is right for some people but not for everyone.

Drew Baker's picture
Drew Baker - Mar 26, 2009

I don't know what to say. Yes went to far, but why should wealthy people be the exclusive property owners? One's house is an asset. Something you own and can sell or pass on in your estate? Something no one could just take from you, or raise your rent every year, or set limitations. And, why should I take my income and make someone else rich. Being too lazy to fix a furnance is not a good reason. Owning your home represents independence. Renting is ok for some, but to go back to the days when only the very rich owned and everyone else added to their wealth by leasing a space, is going backward and is only good for a privilged few. Don't let this odd and anomolus time cause us to go back to pyrimad capitalism.

David Fernandes's picture
David Fernandes - Mar 26, 2009

In Mr. Phelps argument supporting the elimination of the income tax mortgage deduction, he points out how the homeowner does not income tax for “the services of the asset”, and should therefore be denied the privilege. He goes on to compare renting to homeownership in terms of maintenance costs. However, he does not consider how the home owner’s maintenance and repair expenses contribute to the economy by employing contractors and consuming raw and finished materials, all of which are taxed. While I believe that Mr. Phelps argument is technically correct, is it a good idea to pull more money out of the economy at this point? Recent events have shown that the American worker cannot count on big industry for steady employment.

Gordon Alper's picture
Gordon Alper - Mar 26, 2009

In more normal times, inflation and building equity are fundalmental goals of home ownership. Inflation creates tax incentivized capital growth and paying off the balance is saving. These are worthwhile goals of homeownership. I understand that rent has a place in our life. But the virtue of value building is to be lauded as well.

Troy Iuliucci's picture
Troy Iuliucci - Mar 26, 2009

Mr. Edmunds started by saying that home owners get all the benefits of a house and then a tax right off. After saying that this did not make sense he then mentioned that homeowners also have all the maintenance concerns.

He then said that renters do not have any concerns, but he failed to mention that all of the homeowners' concerns are built into rent prices. He never considered that only the interest on the loan can be written off and the lender pay taxes on those gains.

I am a fan of Marketplace, but this interview was a waste of time.

Take care,
Troy

Mr. Edmunds said that people should change their emphasis from homeownership to career. What he failed to mention is that unlike college professers most Americans cannot count on having a career today. Companies stopped offering individuals careers when they changed the name of the Personnel Department to Human Resources. People get laid off all the time now. In fact, the discussion of Charlotte, NC quickly showed a woman who thought she would retire from Bank of America, but was instead laid off. Mr. Edmunds lives in the professorial bubble of a stable career while a large number of jobs have gone abroad.

The discussion of homeownership completely missed the concept of no longer having a large home payment after the mortgage is paid off.

Robert Greeney's picture
Robert Greeney - Mar 26, 2009

Wow! I am not surprised that there are strong reactions to Professor Phelps comments. Homeowners (I am one) do not take offense. I do not think Phelps is criticizing your lifestyle choices. I for one found the questions he raised important questions that usually do not get attention. The current cultural imperative to borrow and spend rather than conserve and save deserves our collective attention and analysis. There are many ways out of our current situation (I refuse to call it a crisis). Stimulation of spending is certainly not the only way or in my opinion even the best way. Contraction is healthy and appropriate and we should take the opportunity to rest and recuperate. I am not worried about the economy contracting. I am not worried about people saving. I am not worried about the value of my home or my wages decreasing. I am worried about my friends and neighbors losing their jobs. That would be my number one priority. The solution to that problem does not require stimulating an economy that has been on "steroids". Rather it requires that we all work together to insure that everyone is taken care of. Insuring that everyone has a job, a place to live and adequate food. Maybe I am reading too much into Phelps comments, but that is what I heard - a call for a re-examination of what quality of life means and what might be an enhanced collective dream. Written with a "grain of salt" Bob Greeney

Pages