Property Market – nowhere to call home

House prices are distorted by demand from investors and governments are making the situation worse

Houses have become so much more than homes and many of us are missing out as a result.  More than just a place to live, houses have become the investment option of choice during turbulent times.  The popularity of investment properties means that buyers looking for a home are being crowded out of the market.  Rather than correcting this distortion, government policies typically make things worse and leave the dream of their own home beyond the hopes of many.

No home sweet home

The property market is never far from any topic of conversation.  Since everybody needs a place to live, it affects us all.  The substantial price tag that comes with buying a house would be enough to weigh on anyone’s mind.  But property purchases take on even greater significance as real estate also counts as a form of saving for the future.  The money tied up in property is the biggest investment that many of us make.  This means that the ups and downs of the housing market shape the financial well-being of many families. 

The predominance of property investment is further accentuated as buy-to-lets become increasingly popular as a means of putting ones wealth to work.  The abstract nature of shares and bonds along with the shenanigans in the financial markets makes property seem like the safe-as-houses option.  Yet this extra source of demand for real estate inflates house prices beyond their value as a mere place to live.  Investment in real estate brings benefits, such as providing rental accommodation and improvements to neglected properties, but the costs also mount as investment in property increases.

With a relatively fixed amount of housing in large cities, one person’s buy-to-let gets in the way of a house becoming a permanent home.  Along with the benefits to home owners, neighbourhoods also have a greater sense of community with stable residents.  The higher house prices due to property investment results in home ownership being coupled with a larger amount of mortgage debt.  This makes the property ladder more tenuous for debt-laden buyers who could easily be caught out by any economic hardship.

Need to make room for more

Governments, which could work to limit these negative consequences, tend to only exacerbate the problem.  Policies targeting the real estate market differ across countries – tax breaks for mortgage debt, low levels of capital gains tax, easier access to loans.  But the common thread is that it is all too tempting for governments to please better off voters by bolstering the property market.  The predominance of monetary policy as the main tool for managing the economy makes this even worse by stoking up borrowing (and the property market) when the economy is weak. 

While pushing up demand, governments do too little to boost supply.  It is more housing that is often cited by politicians as the solution to buoyant property prices but government regulations and zoning rules are not reflective of the growing need for new houses.  Houses take too long to build while elections are never far off even though more building would make for good economic policy at a time when the economy is still suffering from a shortfall in demand.

Financial markets are awash with other places to invest.  Our animal spirits should be limited to parts of the economy where the ups and downs can be absorbed without wider consequences for the rest of us.  Housing is too important to get caught up in such investment games.

Productivity – cutting both ways

Far from being a cure-all, productivity gains are instead cutting into the number of jobs

Higher productivity seems like the answer to all of our economic woes but being more productive is not all good.  Doing more with less is a way of making us wealthier by getting more out of the limited resources available.  Improvements in productivity often thus translate into more profits or lower prices (or both).  But there is also a nasty side in that one of the resources that can be done away with is workers.  Trends such as greater globalization and improvements to technology have resulted in many (well paying) jobs being put to the chop and we should not be expecting any respite soon.

Doing more with less

Economics is a discipline which is based on the notion of scarce resources.  It is no surprise then that economists rave about how improvements to productivity are the key to prosperity.  Any business that can produce the same products using fewer inputs is bound to do well.  Being more productive as a worker is also opens up the way for the opportunity to demand higher wages.  Any gains from higher productivity are split between companies, employees, and consumers but it is not always the case that everyone gets a share.

My favourite example of productivity gains where everyone got their cut was Henry Ford and the motorcar.  Ford did not invent the automobile or the assembly line but he did figure out a way of manufacturing cars cheaply.  The continued existence of the Ford Motor Company is testament to how much he and his family have thrived.  On top of this, workers at the firm also benefited from the new jobs that were created as well as the higher wages on offer.  Cars also became available to many more people thanks to the mass production of the Model T resulting in a lower price tag.

Suffering from cut backs

The example of Henry Ford and the Model T shows how more can be produced cheaply using more workers.  But this is only a viable way of making money when there is a rapidly expanding consumer market and an appetite for more and more goods.  This seemingly came to an end in the richer countries when most households became wealthy enough to buy the basics such as a car, a fridge, and a TV.  Without being able to tap into economies of scale by producing more and more, the emphasis has since shifted to producing goods at the lowest cost. 

One of the main avenues for cutting costs has been outsourcing manufacturing and some services to countries where wages are lower.  Computers and the Internet have also helped companies save money by better optimising their operations and reducing the need for some clerical work.  Companies have obviously benefited from this and we have as consumers (due to lower prices) but not as workers.  There is no modern-day version of the Model T that might provide a new source of lucrative job opportunities.  Instead we spend our money on services (eating out or going away on holiday) or goods where much of the value is in design rather than the goods themselves (such as clothing or electronic gadgets).

Cut yourself free

The challenge for developed countries is to create more high paying jobs for its educated workforce.  Instead, the opposite seems to be happening and the economic recovery after the global financial crisis has been characterized by a proliferation of jobs with low pay.  Higher unemployment allowed companies to hire workers on the cheap and this has dulled incentives for business investment.  It is easier to get things done using cheap labour than spending money on making your current workers more productive. 

Unemployment in countries such as the US and the UK has fallen but this has yet to translate into significantly higher wages.  Neither is a rapid improvement likely as companies are still timid about investing due to the weak momentum of the economic recovery.  Government policy is also a hindrance due to the focus on austerity measures rather than taking advantage of low interest rates to invest.  

The only way out for beleaguered workers seems to be setting up their own business which has become increasingly more popular.  The jump in entrepreneurship may be one of the few silver linings as people cut themselves free to become their own boss and to have productivity gains there for the taking.

Fiscal Policy – Not fighting back

The government has been subdued in the fight to revive the economy despite a change in strategy being long overdue

Considering the trouble we are having fighting back against the aftermath of the financial crisis, it seems strange that the government is not using its full arsenal.  Central banks have come out all guns blazing with their monetary policy but governments have held back from firing up fiscal policy.  Worries about their levels of debt were behind this tepid response by governments but such concerns have eased while the economic recovery struggles to pick up momentum.  Why should be suffer further losses while saving our ammunition?

Hit and miss

Central banks launched themselves into the front line while governments remained in the background due to self-inflicted wounds.  Monetary policy had been enough to deal with past recessions and resulted in a belief that central banks were infallible in this regard.  High levels of debt along with a banking sector under attack meant that low interest rates had little effect and quantitative easing was not much better.  Along with not making much headway, monetary policy also caused considerable collateral damage in the form of financial instability.  This was a sign that central banks were being asked to do too much in the face of a once-in-a generation economic slump.

Most governments were happy to sit back having mismanaged their finances resulting in high levels of government debt prior to the crisis.  The Eurozone crisis prompted governments to further retreat amid worries that investors would shun any government with too much debt.  This pushed governments off on a trajectory of austerity which continued even though fears about government debt abated within several months.  The economic recovery has been muted due to weak demand with companies not willing to invest despite low interest rates and consumers hurting due to large debts and stagnating wages.

Time for a new battle plan

Monetary policy was always likely to struggle to make much ground while there is little impetus to spend, let alone borrow.  This shortfall could be overcome by the government which fixes problems, from crime to pollution, that are caused by others.  Keeping the economy ticking over when spending would otherwise be weak would prevent more damage being done to the economy.  Otherwise, the economy becomes less productive as firms stop investing in new technologies and the skills of people out of work deteriorate.

It seems an even more obvious solution at a time when there is so much that the government could spend its money on such as improving Internet access, accelerating the uptake of renewable energy, and updating transport infrastructure.  The low interest rates provide the perfect opportunity to invest for the future especially when companies are not up to doing so.  Investment projects could be set up to boost output in the economy for a few years until spending from other picks up the slack. 

A winning strategy

Despite the still faltering economic recovery, governments loathe changing direction and austerity continues to reign in Europe and the UK (as well as US to a lesser extent).  Moves to fix government finances made sense following the jump in interest rates on government debt in the Eurozone but this turmoil in the financial markets has long passed.  Weak overall spending and the threat of deflation setting in is now the dominant problem facing many countries. 

Higher spending by the government that lifted the productivity of the economy could be funded through borrowing at low interest rates and repaid through higher taxes that a more efficient economy would generate.  This is the opposite of what is happening in the UK where austerity is hurting the economy and efforts to reduce the government deficit are being thwarted due to a fall in money from taxes. 

There is still time for a change of strategy to have an impact in the fight for an economy recovery that improves the lives of us all.  Even if it is too late, investing for the future when interest rates are at record lows seems like a no brainer.  A change is due as this is a battle that no one wants to lose.

Let's not (Christmas) party like it's 2007

The heady days leading to the global financial crisis were never meant to last so there is no point in expecting to turn back the clock

It is the time for great merriment but Christmas office parties across London still leave many wishfully thinking back to the good old days.  Despite much talk of an economic recovery, it can still be tough to find reasons to be cheerful about and less cash being spent by companies on seasonal festivities is another reminder of this.  But we should not be asking Santa for a return to the days of lavish Christmas dos with workmates and big entertainment budgets (if they ever did exist).  The economy of old which allowed such excesses could only bring in a few good years of partying before the good times inevitably turned bad. 

Living the high life on borrowed time

The boom times that were still in swing a decade ago seem a long way off.  It was a time when all seemed good with the economy and nothing much would go wrong.  This spirit seemed best exemplified by the exuberance among economists who (mistakenly) thought that their ideas had conquered the ups and downs of the economy.  The great evil of past decades, inflation, had been kept in check and the recession following the dotcom bust passed without much strife. 

This new stable economic environment seemed to benefit the finance sector most of all.  Banks came up with new ways of making lots of money with bankers themselves reaping much of the rewards.  Even some among the rest of us got to enjoy a sprinkling of the good life with many companies splashing out the odd treat on their workers (especially around Christmas time) even if this generosity was not reflected in wages.

The enthusiasm was infectious and we all wanted our share.  The result was loads of new debt as our spending reflected these new aspirations even if our income was lagging behind.  Even the governments in many countries spent beyond their means and got their finances in a mess.  Since inflation remained subdued despite the elevated spending, interest rates never rose by much enabling the debt levels to soar beyond what was prudent.  And banks were only too happy to lend since new financial products, such as mortgage-backed securities, allowed them to pass on increasingly dubious loans to others.

Not banking on trouble

This was one party that could not go on for ever.  An increase in debt is good for spurring the economy along but this can only go so far until lending becomes more reckless.  The final straw was mortgage lending in the United States where new rules encouraged housing loans to individuals who were never likely to be able to afford repayments (so-called sub-prime mortgages).  The many who lost their jobs (including Your Neighbourhood Economist) and even their homes in the ensuing financial turmoil ended up with little to show from the good years.  Yet, on the other hand, the exorbitant pay packets received by many bank employees left them sitting pretty whatever was to happen.

We should all feel repentant like Christmas drinks where we get carried away and make a fool of ourselves.  One way of stopping ourselves getting into trouble is to rein in the banking sector.  This does not mean the equivalent of alcohol-free Christmas festivities but just stricter rules to make sure that things don’t get out of hand.   The perils of too much debt should have always been obvious but it is inability of the banking sector and the financial markets to suitably regulate lending that is perhaps the biggest lesson that we need to address.

Time to sober up

Any economic growth does not count for much if we have to give back most of the gains after a few good years.  Yet, giving up on this easy way of making ourselves richer also means that we cannot expect the economy to grow like in the past.  It will take hard work and sensible policies rather than financial wizardry to make genuine improvements in our standard of living.  The trade-off being that we can create a world where our jobs and what we make for ourselves is more secure.

The government could have a big role to play in this especially since companies are not investing as much as they used to.  Greater spending on infrastructure and education as well as lower medical costs would be a good start to help increase productivity (and wages) as well as going some way to propping up spending.  The solution sounds simple enough but politics is never easy especially at a time when the easy option is for politicians to offer up false promises.  It is voters most of all that need to be realistic in terms of what is achievable.  No party is worth a hangover on the scale of the global financial crisis.