Home financing ever possible? Probably not!

I will now put forward the provocative thesis that it must be this way. Prices adjust to the available money. If almost only men work, prices are at a level that is sufficient for single earners. If most women also work and two incomes are the norm, two incomes are needed. Otherwise, a middle-class life is not possible.

Nope. Our problem simply is that countries like China, India, Brazil have become really big consumers and thus major competitors for raw materials.

We are now beginning to feel what happens when more and more people want to live the way we Western Europeans have lived for about 50 years.
Indians and Chinese no longer want to sit in their bamboo huts... and there are almost 3 billion of them, which is six times more than in the entire EU.

... An example is home care, which is today often provided for money by professionals, whereas in the past it was arranged "voluntarily" within the family. The money to pay these professionals has to be earned. And is included in all kinds of prices. ...

just so no one gets the wrong idea. The proportion of home care performed by professionals is still quantitatively the proverbial drop in the ocean. Even though nursing services are now sprouting up like weeds. And "voluntary" care by relatives is already being compensated (according to a scale, but quite poorly). Receiving home care is still a gamble; the slot has to fit, but the scope of required tasks usually exceeds the thin staffing levels of nursing services. Thus, often only absolutely urgent services are provided, further sensible ones unfortunately often not. The same applies in the field of aids. The senseless struggles over absolutely necessary aids often border on the comic, but unfortunately tragicomic. I experience this in the family but also professionally (among our clients are, among others, nursing services and medical supply stores).

just so that no one gets the wrong idea. The proportion of home care provided by professionals is still quantitatively the proverbial drop in the bucket. Even though care services are now sprouting like weeds. And "voluntary" care by relatives is already compensated (according to a schedule, but rather poorly). Getting home care is still a gamble, the slot has to fit, but the scope of the required tasks usually exceeds the thin staffing of care services. So often only absolutely urgent services are provided, further sensible ones often unfortunately not. The same applies in the area of aids. The absurd battles over absolutely necessary aids often border on comedy, but unfortunately tragicomedy. I experience this in the family but also professionally (among our clients are also care services and medical supply stores)

You are right, but the example stood for something fundamental: Activities have been and are gradually being shifted from the unpaid sector into the paid sphere. This permeates the entire value chain and must lead to higher prices, to what else? People are paid by others paying for them. On the other hand, this means that today we can use services and social infrastructure that did not exist before. Overall, this is more expensive than before, but in return there is more than before. I cannot deduce a loss of prosperity from a “more for more.” That was my point: Nowadays, a lot is said by people about loss of prosperity who are curtailed by price fluctuations in their sometimes enormous consumption. I consider this an unhealthy measure of prosperity, but that is just my personal opinion. Because the long-term trend shows enormous gains in prosperity and I also don’t see why this trend should be able to continue forever. Or why anyone should want that at all. There are others first in line with completely different starting positions. That this is rarely reflected upon when the well-off circle of acquaintances complains, meaning that it doesn’t even come as an ironic remark, bothers me more and more nowadays. And then I start wondering whether I am going crazy or the others.

When I wrote here at the end of last year that many people would probably lose their homes in the next few years due to the political/economic situation, I was laughed at.

Well, it will still take some time before the first homeowners who financed at too low interest rates are up for a follow-up financing. But if you only repay 1% at 1% interest, with a property worth 500k€ +, you will definitely struggle with 4%+ interest rates, because almost nothing has been paid off.

Anyone who took out a loan 10 years ago at 4% interest now has no problem with repayment in a follow-up financing with a lower remaining debt. Anyone who in 2017 with a 10-year fixed interest rate did not repay at least 2-3% per year or planned to reduce the remaining debt in some other way, does not deserve any different in 2027. Although one must also say, who knows if we won’t be back at 2% then. Otherwise, anyone who keeps an eye on their repayment is also on the safe side, since forward loans could have been used to prepare. I wouldn’t pay any attention to this or similar sensationalist articles.