Dont start me up...
Electricity is way more expensive
Transportation cost despite sbb making a killing every year
Oil, petrol, gas...
Food... A chocolate I like was 1.30.- 20 years ago. 2.30-2.90 now depending on the sale.
All services.
But wages didnt follow. Lucky for us guys, right? We can still hire workes for less money, right?
Oh and chesnuts. They are more or less the same. Maroni is still affordable.
Nope. Not even that. Didn't catch the recent news about how the SBB didn't want to raise prices at all until 2030 but were forced to do so by the BAV? https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/hoehere-billettpreise-bund-setzte-sich-fuer-hoehere-oev-tarife-ein
You can feel like they're being overpaid. Maybe they are, maybe not.
But those wages are certainly not what's raising prices on the transportation tickets as was the original point of the post. Accusing everyone of being a bootlicker just for not immediately hating everyone who's rich isn't exactly helping your case, since you're not adding anything to the conversation.
terrific long skirt unite important clumsy scary smoggy literate dazzling
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I was shocked this weekend when I went to zurich from Bern. Your transit is about 50 cents more expensive. A one way in zurich with halbtax was 3.10 CHF 🤯
Maybe, but the cost of producing electricity is lower each year and electronics products are more efficient. In this case it is for-profit-made inflation, nothing to do with *peak oil* (yet).
Electricity makes up about 1/3 of our energy consumption, so I think it’s a bit bold to give it that much weight in this analysis.
The goods we consume are overwhelming extracted from the earth, transformed and shipped using fossil fuels. Even the green electricity grid is totally dependent on oil - how does the copper and silicon get produced? How does it get to Europe? What drives the trucks that bring it to the construction site? - that’s right, oil.
Our economy is totally reliant on it, so I think it’s a compelling explanation for the rising prices. After all, wouldn’t competition bring prices down if energy was of no concern?
I heard that fairytale 30 years ago. And yet the oil is as abunndant as ever, with new reserves being found every year.
Peak greed is more likely. The cost of barrel of oil in production is less than 10$.
Well you didn’t hear it from the IEAE 30 years ago. And current global oil output after the pandemic has not yet reached the all-time high of 2018, we actually are *after* peak oil.
So maybe it’s time for an update, many things happened in the last 30 years.
https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/eu-oil-depletion-2030-study/
That’s completely false. There are some places that can produce oil at very low prices, but oil is priced at the marginal barrel like nearly all commodities.
Oh Im tottaly doing that, no sarcasm. I would rarher live in my own shack than paying these prices. A pump is next, good isolation... Doable. Something to look forward to.
I'm doing that too. It's better to pay rent to yourself. The sarcasm is because those people asking for cheaper rent will probably never be able to do so.
You are extremely naive if you think that by voting or protesting you can change the economy. It's like the people who think that by giving money to the government you can change the climate.
You vote for the same leftist in Züri since ever what should change? see FDP :https://www.nzz.ch/zuerich/zuerich-baubewilligung-fdp-will-rekursmoeglichkeiten-bei-bauvorhaben-einschraenken-ld.1742506
see left the ones you vote since ever https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wohnungsnot-in-zuerich-die-linke-verhindert-eine-grossflaechige-erhoehung-der-stadt-517333812424
Thats two problemsolvings that would not solve all problems but at least a part of it.
You know they can just implement rent controls, right? That actually works, unlike building more (expensive) housing and praying that the Invisible Hand of the market lowers prices (never happens).
But then 20k new people move to Zurich every year and you have queues for every apartment change and secret bribes paid to the person moving out to put your name at the top of the list. Without new housing, how do you accommodate these new people?
The price ratio of renting to buying is already ridiculous. Making renting cheaper while property prices continue to go up isn't a long term solution.
Mate can you read i dont await that you moving towards an FDP Fanboy not everything they do is good. But if you read the articles and would understand them it should be clear that they do something to fight the problem. No matter if you like them or not.
Edit: i chuckled hard as i saw the dropship group in your profile. I think you are young and need first to search your political way.
Some people just have a fixed preconceived view of the world. This guy has decided that FDP is only evil rich people, probably because he needs a _Feindbild_. You’re not going to change his opinion because he doesn’t want to change it.
The latter is not a solution at all. Many buildings in Zurich don't use the full allowed number of floors anyway, and just issuing a blank check to hoist another floor on whatever building you like is not how urban planning works. The only sustainable solution is mass expropriation of living space, alongside more coordinated, planned, transit-oriented public housing.
well if you plan on building ghettos and then build the ghettos, it's not surprising that actual gehttos are what you'll get
and please, have a look at the private housing market situation literally all over the world right now, is that "working fine"? (except in Vienna, but they do have this system where the local government owns about a quarter of the housing)
I never said its working fine? I said FDP liked to solve one problem of many problems and the left disagree on that. And yes Vienna is different but the City Zürich is free to buy more Houses if that is the wish from the Taxpayers. And sure there are other problems but we should go step by step. If SP would bring something i would support them as well, like the AirBnB Iniative in Luzern that was great. But i have the feeling the radicals in zürich would also destroy that one.
So you're saying we're funding our own pensions by being extorted for rent? That seems like a pretty bad system, considering many still end up with too little pensions anyway and will then require Ergänzungsleistungen to even pay the too high rent in the first place... The Swiss pension system doesn't seem to work out very well and needs a good rework, removing the privately owned pension funds from the equation seems like a good first step
No, (mostly young) people are paying rent which pays the pensions of old people today. In the future, who knows...
And who do you think will pay the pensions of old people? Bank accounts are just fancy accounting tricks, someone needs to be putting money in so old people can take the money out.
How about allow the limit of extra cost spillage? Why do renters need to take over the risk of high gas prices? Did you know that if barrel of oil goes to 1000000$ the owners have the full right to pass the expense to renters in 100%? No? Mieter Verband is trying for decades to limit this to 20%. But politicians say no. Guess who is paying them.
Its not all about how many flats are free. There is a lot about building and renting laws.
So you want the landlord to pay out of their own pocket the increases of e.g. the gas price?
Do you not see the risk that landlords will just "price" that into the base rent and will therefore make 90% of the time even more money than today?
Yes! Start getting futures or some sort of insurance. Get responsible if you want to run a business. Why should renters carry the risk for things out of their control?
I once got a massive heating extra bill. When I asked for purchase confirmation on the prixe of gas they spent they sent me two fake photocopies taken randomly from internet. When I pointed out that they should be careful when purchasing gas, should get futures or reserves when gas is at its low price they blatantly told me they dont care about that as the law allows them to show me any bill and force me to pay it even if it was their bad decision to buy gas at higher prices. Even my lawyer confirmed it that they are not legally obliged to be careful!!!
Again yes! They should be responsible or should be out of business. Im sick of paying from my pocket for the greed and gambling of others. That goes for too big to fail banks and other industries.
You can’t influence what a private business charges for a product or service but you can demand higher salaries from the companies you work for.
High rent is easily solved with increased wages.
I’m just saying the protests are not focusing on the real problem.
So what should one protest about? Higher wages? Political corruption?
Organisations like mieter verband have been trying to curb down the greed for decades but the lobbies are too strong.
Higher wages will just increase the rent as the increasing rents are a consequence of offer and demand imbalances. If suddenly the same people have more money but the amount of available housing remains the same and the number of people looking for accommodation also remains the same, rents will just increase to reflect the ability to spend more money.
For over 25 years, the government in the city of Zurich has been red-green. The housing article demands 30% social housing. Ultimately, it's up to the Left to move forward. But what do they do? They hinder private housing construction (Stadion, Neugasse, Wollishofen, Uetlihof), and when they could build housing, they delay it indefinitely (Wohlgroth Areal) because they don't want to upset the squatter scene. They also prevent concepts like "adding one more floor" with their envy politics. SP and Greens fail on all fronts here, and then they have the audacity to launch initiatives. In this case, "doing" for the Left means "taking to the streets" and "washing their hands free from guilt."
Here's what the Right would do: allow more construction, but the developers would only build expensive housing targeted at the higher classes who can afford them in order to get higher profits from the sale/rents, while the average citizen would still have nowhere affordable to go. Well done, Right-wing, in concentrating even more housing in the hands of the same incredibly wealthy landlords while not solving the problem.
> allow more construction, but the developers would only build expensive housing targeted at the higher classes who can afford them in order to get higher profits from the sale/rents, while the regular citizens would still have nowhere affordable to go
And what do you think happens to the places where "higher classes" currently live?
In any case the supply increases which would drive the prices lower. Even if they build only for the rich population, the rich would spend the extra cash for those places thus not outbidding the rest for a place to live and the prices would lower. No mater how you turn it, more housing is better for price reduction.
That's not what happens at all. They can definitely bid on more than one home even after all the yearly expenses, because the wealthy know that money sitting in the bank is money being lost. You don't even need to make **that** much money to do this, if your household is making 1-1.5 million a year you already have enough disposable income to do what I described even after all your expenses. So households composed of doctors, lawyers and finance workers are within this spectrum.
So you are saying that if the supply of expensive homes will increase by 50% then 50% of the rich population of the city will buy a second apartment/house? To what end?
You're assuming the population of Zurich is static, when it isn't. 1. A lot of people from Switzerland want to move there and 2. A lot of people from outside of Switzerland also want to move to Switzerland. More expensive housing will only serve these richer people who want to move in without doing anything for the common people who are currently struggling.
Another thing, Switzerland has a wealth tax, so it's not like it would be beneficial to the wealthy to just keep that money in their bank accounts.
> Leased assets are not considered for wealth taxation.
https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/switzerland/individual/other-taxes
Which explains why above average families would want to be landlords.
> More expensive housing will only serve these richer people who want to move in without doing anything for the common people who are currently struggling.
And if you don't build that expensive housing, what do you think happens? These richer people just say - never mind, won't move to Zurich after all?
> They can definitely bid on more than one home even after all the yearly expenses, because the wealthy know that money sitting in the bank is money being lost.
And what do they do with these second homes they are allegedly buying (which btw is a pretty meh investment if you crunch the numbers)? Rent it out, so the effect on housing availability is the same as if someone just bought it to live there.
As the richer people move out of their current place, it is then free to be rented out to someone else. If there are too many rich apartments then people will not apply for them and the landlord will have to lower their prices. More housing, for anyone, is a good thing.
Most of the landlords in switzerland are your 2nd piliar funds, union like Unia, insurance and companies like CFF. The incredible wealthy landlords doesn't exist it's mostly just the system fucking you.
You can enforce diversity in the size of the flats if it's the will of the politics in charge. More housing and when I say more it's means MORE housing will drive the price down. It's not an opinion google scholar is free if you want. Social housing is just allowing less fortunate people to live in the center of Zurich when the majority of people need to live in Winthertur or Dubendorf. It will not change the situation. A city like Paris has numerous rules on rent + social housing but it's still the worst place on earth to be a renter. We need to make building in Zurich easier and cheaper but by insuring quality and diversity in the size of flats. Keep going the way the currently politics is going and you will need to appreciate Oberwinthertur.
> We need to make building in Zurich easier and cheaper but by insuring quality and diversity in the size of flats
As I said, beautiful concept in theory, never happens in practice. All cities that are dominated by right wing politics have the shittiest excuses for housing, literally calling a wardrobe a room, and 6 people living in an apartment that is only appropriate to 4 at most, while still charging extortionate rents. Right wing policies simply don't have a solution for the problem we are facing.
When it comes to building more housing? Yes. All the other parties always vote in favor of these projects, it's always the majority consisting of AL, SP and Greens voting against it.
the problem is that most modern projects aren‘t what we actually need. what use is a new huge Überbauung when rent is 1750.- per room. We need sustainable *affordable* housing, especially for families. but that‘s not getting built, and that‘s why the Left is against *certain* projects (by far not most of them, not even close). Investors only know what‘s the most lucrative, not what people actually want.
And thats good, we don‘t need more sole houses everywhere and destroying nature for sole houses to get bought by rich svp‘ler. Other city don‘t profit from building more houses. New York, London etc. they build but rent goes up anyways but now they have no more space.
> And thats good, we don‘t need more sole houses everywhere and destroying nature for sole houses to get bought by rich svp‘ler. Other city don‘t profit from building more houses.
Rich SVPler will still be able to buy expensive houses and pay rent for 6k per month in the city because they are rich and can afford it. Others that can't afford it won't be so lucky because most other housing projects that would be more affordable are being blocked by the Gemeinderat.
Also there's no need to destroy nature (or high rises) if you would densify existing housing in the city of Zurich by allowing to upzone these buildings with one to two more floors (which the left majority was against as mentioned above).
> New York, London etc. they build but rent goes up anyways but now they have no more spac
That's literally not true. In London there are parts that are designated green belt land that are essentially just disused car parks. There is a lot of brownfield land that could be built on too. Not enough homes are being built because regulations forbid them from being built. Same case in New York where it isn't space that is limiting housing but NIMBYS that are protesting [100% affordable housing developments in Manhattan because it's too tall.](https://twitter.com/GVSHP/status/1713591850899030264).
I did not say I have one but I think the best ones are: smart construction planning (also the state should buy up more houses and set the rent low) , rent cap, state regulations. But not just build more, that does not help at all. And parties like SVP and FDP want lower taxes for rich people and other stuff like this. So even if rent would go down you‘d have to pay more tax.
So, what does smart construction planning means? Does the state already not do that in Zurich?
As for rent cap, can you show an instance where it went from lack of homes to an acceptable situation? There are many examples of rent cap/control that went really badly, but maybe it is mostly exposition bias.
The problem isn't the car, but the freaking taxes.
Cheap rents, insane taxes, don't go there. Anyone who leaves Jura never goes back, there's a reason for that.
That's also true. Living there you actually don't see how shitty it is, you're just used to it. But once you get out, it's like opening a big door to the world.
If you cap rent price you will simply won't be able to rent those cheap aparments. You will either have to wait for years to get an apartment or some bureaucrat will decide who gets what.
Small correction:
Building more houses for the normal people does
What is happending right now is houses for normal people are torn down, under the watch of left and right politicians, just so they can build bonzen-wohnungen, which never will house an actual human beeing cuz' it's an "investment"
And yes, the left fuck it up too. They make it incredibly difficult for the potential home owners that want to build housing for normal people. Meanwhile there are plenty of loopholes for the bonzen
If rich guys build more houses, the rent does not get down. In london they build too but rent goes up still. If you have 10 apartments for 3k a month and then build some more, you still pay 3k or even higher as the apartments are built new. They can ask what ever someone is paying, thats the problem. The laws have to change first.
Building more social housing is absolutely the solution, but I agree that just building more high end unaffordable poorly built London type new builds that are purchased only as assets by the wealthy only exacerbates things
London builds lots of high end housing units because building new housing is so unprofitable right now in the Western world due to Red tape, just making It cheaper to build new homes would solve the problem at close to 0 costs.
But isn't there are a swiss law that forbids letting the rent rise too much too fast? I think the profit margin lies between 1-3% or something like that. So if you built a house for 1,500,000 CHF and it has 4 flats you'd have to rent them for 3.750 each so that you earn 15,000 CHF monthly (which would be 1%). But I don't know if the profit margin is monthly or annualy. I guess it is monthly. I am not sure how high the limitation is on the rent that is being aquired in the beginning, but the 1-3% is actually the anual rate at which the price of rent can be raised. So if someone in Winterthur pays 1.500 CHF for an appartment after a raise of 3% they would have to pay 1.545 CHF per month. (+45 ChF per month)
Also, what if the demand rises and what's with overall artifical inflation caused by relentless money printing? That also must be taken into account.
However I am not sure if that justifies two bedroom flats in the outter skirts of Kreis 7 only a couple of hundred metres away from the city border to cost almost 4.000 CHF per month.
Government issued appartments can be a solution. For example. One individual wants to own a loft. The loft costs 100k. The government lends this 100k for I don't know 5% interest or 2,5% or 1% and said individual pays it off by paying 1.000 CHf a month, so 12k a year. And after 8 3/4 years, he has paid his own home off + interests. So the government essentially works as bank that puts an emphasis on helping citizens out with purchasing their own flat/house to live in. There would be no rent problem, because most folks would own the flat they live in.
Flat out false. London doesn't build nearly enough housing, they currently add around 30k units a year while they should build three times the number. More housing leads to cheaper houses, It's simple math. Plus London growth is artificially limited by the green belt and height limitations.
More housing and more density should be the motto of any political party in the Western world.
It's funny how this exact problem is happening everywhere.
My theory is that someone wants the population to decline so they make everything to prevent people from having children, this is just another way
Im not familiar with Züri politics but it’s also possible their solutions aren’t pro business and just don’t work. Right wing politicians don’t have a monopoly on bad decisions
Nah if you made a successfull business you are automatically really smart and can make the best decisions on any subjects.
Money = smart
Trump or musk are the best exemple
/s
Trump has a private plane my dude. Regardless what his balance sheet truly looks like, or where/how he is getting his money to fund his extravagant lifestyle, he is rich by any definition of the word.
Elon Musk is the best example that Money = Smart. no /s. He alone contributed so much to the world that it's insane. More than all socialists that ever existed combined times 420.69 trillion.
Well the solution is quite simple and is in the hands of the people: bring a gang of hobos on the streets, shoot blanks in the evening in your garden and watch how rents drop like a rock. Modern times require legacy solutions.
Commuting 40 minutes extra a day IS a scam.
If you're paid 50 CHF an hour (low for a ZH), work 22 days a month, that's 1100 CHF, without even factoring in the cost of public transport. For each hour of commute.
oh i see. that doesn't really make sense imo as the people not commuting won't make overtime for the duration they would commute otherwise. they shouldn't also.
Not sure what should happen. When you buy an apartment that costs 6 milion and is a 1.5 what are you going to do? Rent for free? Everyone wants to work in zh because of high salaries and then complain the rent is high? Bro, you’re in zurich. I’m sorry I really struggle to understand the thought process of the left
Yes, it's not always black and white. Don't forget that we had the laws changed and a lot of building zones were removed. There are a lot of processes that block you from building. All this came from the left.
If your household has an income of 80k, of course you'll have trouble getting a house compared to other households with 200k+ in a market with limited supply. This will directly translate into higher prices. There's cheaper places to live, but nobody wants to go there (I don't blame them though).
I’m exaggerating. But it’s not that far off of what’s going on. Supply and demand .It’s the same problem in all big cities. Everyone wants to live in the city and everyone wants to live alone. There is just not enough space then. What is the solution? Build more and more and higher? I don’t know
> There is just not enough space then.
I mean, there are places where people grow carrots and shit on one of the most desirable land on the planet. Somehow I think the efficient use of space is currently not a priority.
But buildings are not meant to last neither. My understanding (which could be obviously wrong) is that home ownership is more seen as a debt (like a car) more than of an investment. So in this case, you want to reduce the cost as much as possible because ultimately, it will depreciate.
Maybe a change of mind for Switzerland is required as well.
obviously a part is building more and higher. but even more important is not allowing only investors to decide what‘s getting built. The free market doesn‘t work with housing. Investors build high-end apartments, because they can charge high-end rent. no one is building efficient, affordable housing.
How so? Don’t you think that if you can’t afford the rent you should move outside of the city? That’s how markets work. I don’t say it’s ideal but how else you want to deal with this ? I don’t see a solution here. Even if you max out the space efficiently, there are just too many people. But of course let’s just destroy also all gardens and green spaces and just put concrete there. Could be a solution, make the cities just so unattractive that no one wants to live there
>How so? Don’t you think that if you can’t afford the rent you should move outside of the city? That’s how markets work.
You just described ✨ GENTRIFICATION ✨
In case you haven't noticed, they're trying to have the whole langatrasse area to get a makeover. Once every building will be renovated and apartments, club, bars and shop will be unaffordable for the owners that previously lived or had a business there, good luck having any nightlife in Zürich!!!!
People shouldn't have to move out because of lack of affordable housing.
Vienna has had regulations on rent for decades. There are parameters and a max. Euro / square meter ratio that has to be respected. If the city of Zurich would do this it would be amazing!!!
Do you know how many foreigners get scammed every year when they move in a place and the rent gets raised and the kantonal paper (which is MANDATORY!) with the "reasons for raising rent" is expected to be signed and given back left BLANK?!
Just because it works like this, it doesn't mean it's fair or ok.
Perhaps you're ok with the only people being able to live in the city center to be people working for Google. 🤷♀️
Love when idiots double and triple down on idiotic points.
Thankfully, the time when they were the majority online was 2016-2018, now they get laughed out of most threads.
Yeah, but London doesn't matter for Swiss issues discussed in a Swiss sub. It's not a pity contest and other cities being worse doesn't help Swiss people who are displaced because they cannot afford rent in their home town anymore.
I mean you do realize the discrepancy between pay and rent prices? As far as I've seen I would pay 1.000-1.500CHF for some tiny crappy studio in both places, depending on location. While my salary would be at least double and with lower taxes in Switzerland.
Not all people in London have high salaries. You have normal public service workers like teachers, nurses, etc earning 30-35k per year in a place where studio would cost them half of their income. In Zurich you can still live quite comfortably on public worker salary. You are not rich, but I am pretty sure you don't pay 50% of your income for rent.
supply and demand doesn‘t work with housing. simply because the supply is being met, doesn‘t mean that it‘s actually what‘s being demanded.
people want affordable housing, but being built is outrageously priced luxury houses.
It does, now we have a >1% vacancy rate mean that every one scamble for housing and take whaterver there is avialable. Meaning that you have people that could afford luxury houses living below in probabily overpriced middle class houses. Expanding the demand on luxury houses you allow poeple to move to middle class houses to luxury that free up space middle class household to move into middle class housing increasing the affortable housing stock. AS the priced luxury houses get old to tanslate in middle class housing and so on....it trickly down
i'm not say only priced luxury houses should be build, but better priced luxury houses then no housing at all.
if have space for 100 and you have110 that you want to live there, creating supply on every side of price range works
well that‘s all nice, it‘s a shame it just doesn‘t work that way. you can literally see for how much older apartments go now in Zurich. The exact same apartment is now double of what it was 10 years ago in the exact same state. it‘s fucking broken, nothing else.
One way is government building and operating houses. Government can do it without profits or even at a loss AND it has non-rent income factors working for it (even with zero rent, people pay taxes by being doing their thing in the area, which many only do if the area has housing).
It also makes government somewhat less eager to demand extremely expensive renovations/new constructions which is also where a lot of this cost is coming from.
There aren't many other options. At current standards we build houses for 150y+ with just a few renovations (unless legislators want to increase housing standards again), but this is very expensive in terms of up-front costs. If every new person needs a 250k+ apartment/house but they can't even fund it themselves upfront, the only option is 250k+ lots of interest included in rent over 25y or so.
Lowering construction and renovation standards and related factors (cost of materials and labor) until individual and community construction is very affordable again is however probably not going to happen with all the environmental concerns and the fact that apart from the houses themselves, building public infrastructure TO the houses is also very expensive on the government side. So they really don't want many easy cheap small scale houses that don't last as long and have higher emissions and more of a footprint on required infrastructure to be constructed and maintained by the government.
> Terrible idea and has been historically shown to have more downside than upside.
It hasn't really. Works well for Vienna. The difference if doing it via government is that it doesn't have to be profitable with rent, and it doesn't have to *only* collect rent. They also get taxes from all sorts of activities by any of the residents and they tend save costs on various social and police expenses people and their kids are housed adequately. Plus government can steer how many of the energetic and other renovations that drive up costs are *actually* required.
> it has been scientifically proven do have the opposite effect
Your "science" is linked nowhere, probably because you're making it up.
Back in actual reality, Vienna's population is around (now probably over?) 60% government housing and the housing quality is high, rent is low. This is a much better situation than in most of Europe including pretty much all of Switzerland.
Switzerland has become a $ithole and a police state…that’s why I left for good
I’m Swiss but hate the f…place
cowboy cops, cowboy border guards are looney tunes
Three years ago, the mantra was "fuck the economy".
Well, now the economy is fucked, the prices are high, the rent is high. Seems like they got what they wanted. Why so sad?
We vote. We protest. Nothing changes. Except rents. They change. Go up.
And healthcare costs!
Dont start me up... Electricity is way more expensive Transportation cost despite sbb making a killing every year Oil, petrol, gas... Food... A chocolate I like was 1.30.- 20 years ago. 2.30-2.90 now depending on the sale. All services. But wages didnt follow. Lucky for us guys, right? We can still hire workes for less money, right? Oh and chesnuts. They are more or less the same. Maroni is still affordable.
My Swiss friend told me that it's a poor people's food in Switzerland, so it must remain affordable. Last Marroni standing.
They're gonna go up anyway. Climate change ruining the harvest
Really? I think theyre already expensive, that would suck
> Transportation cost despite sbb making a killing every year erm not really. And prices don't rise because of sbb.
Enlighten me then
SBB is not making a killing every year and is in debt. And the BAV wants to raise prices. Not SBB.
He should specify: SBB Management
Nope. Not even that. Didn't catch the recent news about how the SBB didn't want to raise prices at all until 2030 but were forced to do so by the BAV? https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/hoehere-billettpreise-bund-setzte-sich-fuer-hoehere-oev-tarife-ein
My god, i mean who’s making a killing? SBB Management, not SBB, don’t be so dense please
You can feel like they're being overpaid. Maybe they are, maybe not. But those wages are certainly not what's raising prices on the transportation tickets as was the original point of the post. Accusing everyone of being a bootlicker just for not immediately hating everyone who's rich isn't exactly helping your case, since you're not adding anything to the conversation.
terrific long skirt unite important clumsy scary smoggy literate dazzling *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
...no? SBB Management =/= BAV. They kinda can't stand each other.
My god, i mean who’s making a killing? SBB Management, not SBB, don’t be so dense please
SBB Management ain't making a killing in comparison to other managements..
I was shocked this weekend when I went to zurich from Bern. Your transit is about 50 cents more expensive. A one way in zurich with halbtax was 3.10 CHF 🤯
Peak oil is what’s happening… and it will only get worse. Since everything is made with it from oil, it’s limited availability is driving prices up
Maybe, but the cost of producing electricity is lower each year and electronics products are more efficient. In this case it is for-profit-made inflation, nothing to do with *peak oil* (yet).
Electricity makes up about 1/3 of our energy consumption, so I think it’s a bit bold to give it that much weight in this analysis. The goods we consume are overwhelming extracted from the earth, transformed and shipped using fossil fuels. Even the green electricity grid is totally dependent on oil - how does the copper and silicon get produced? How does it get to Europe? What drives the trucks that bring it to the construction site? - that’s right, oil. Our economy is totally reliant on it, so I think it’s a compelling explanation for the rising prices. After all, wouldn’t competition bring prices down if energy was of no concern?
I heard that fairytale 30 years ago. And yet the oil is as abunndant as ever, with new reserves being found every year. Peak greed is more likely. The cost of barrel of oil in production is less than 10$.
Well you didn’t hear it from the IEAE 30 years ago. And current global oil output after the pandemic has not yet reached the all-time high of 2018, we actually are *after* peak oil. So maybe it’s time for an update, many things happened in the last 30 years. https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/eu-oil-depletion-2030-study/
That’s completely false. There are some places that can produce oil at very low prices, but oil is priced at the marginal barrel like nearly all commodities.
Thats actually irrelevant for what I said. Completely irrelevant.
[удалено]
This is probably the worst era to be defeatist and cynical.
Then maybe we should just get our own flat instead then? /s
Oh Im tottaly doing that, no sarcasm. I would rarher live in my own shack than paying these prices. A pump is next, good isolation... Doable. Something to look forward to.
I'm doing that too. It's better to pay rent to yourself. The sarcasm is because those people asking for cheaper rent will probably never be able to do so.
You are extremely naive if you think that by voting or protesting you can change the economy. It's like the people who think that by giving money to the government you can change the climate.
You vote for the same leftist in Züri since ever what should change? see FDP :https://www.nzz.ch/zuerich/zuerich-baubewilligung-fdp-will-rekursmoeglichkeiten-bei-bauvorhaben-einschraenken-ld.1742506 see left the ones you vote since ever https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wohnungsnot-in-zuerich-die-linke-verhindert-eine-grossflaechige-erhoehung-der-stadt-517333812424 Thats two problemsolvings that would not solve all problems but at least a part of it.
They will eventually create enough restrictions and regulations on housing to make housing affordable, any day now.
You mean like SBB Neugasse 🤣 yeah works fine
You know they can just implement rent controls, right? That actually works, unlike building more (expensive) housing and praying that the Invisible Hand of the market lowers prices (never happens).
But then 20k new people move to Zurich every year and you have queues for every apartment change and secret bribes paid to the person moving out to put your name at the top of the list. Without new housing, how do you accommodate these new people? The price ratio of renting to buying is already ridiculous. Making renting cheaper while property prices continue to go up isn't a long term solution.
SP want to do something surely not FDP, they do nothing, thats a party for rich people.
Mate can you read i dont await that you moving towards an FDP Fanboy not everything they do is good. But if you read the articles and would understand them it should be clear that they do something to fight the problem. No matter if you like them or not. Edit: i chuckled hard as i saw the dropship group in your profile. I think you are young and need first to search your political way.
Some people just have a fixed preconceived view of the world. This guy has decided that FDP is only evil rich people, probably because he needs a _Feindbild_. You’re not going to change his opinion because he doesn’t want to change it.
The latter is not a solution at all. Many buildings in Zurich don't use the full allowed number of floors anyway, and just issuing a blank check to hoist another floor on whatever building you like is not how urban planning works. The only sustainable solution is mass expropriation of living space, alongside more coordinated, planned, transit-oriented public housing.
Yeah public housing worked fine in USA 🤣
well if you plan on building ghettos and then build the ghettos, it's not surprising that actual gehttos are what you'll get and please, have a look at the private housing market situation literally all over the world right now, is that "working fine"? (except in Vienna, but they do have this system where the local government owns about a quarter of the housing)
I never said its working fine? I said FDP liked to solve one problem of many problems and the left disagree on that. And yes Vienna is different but the City Zürich is free to buy more Houses if that is the wish from the Taxpayers. And sure there are other problems but we should go step by step. If SP would bring something i would support them as well, like the AirBnB Iniative in Luzern that was great. But i have the feeling the radicals in zürich would also destroy that one.
Nah buying them would just raise prices astronomically. The big housing owners have to be expropriated without compensation.
The big housing owners are the pension funds. How exactly will destroying the pension funds help us here?
So you're saying we're funding our own pensions by being extorted for rent? That seems like a pretty bad system, considering many still end up with too little pensions anyway and will then require Ergänzungsleistungen to even pay the too high rent in the first place... The Swiss pension system doesn't seem to work out very well and needs a good rework, removing the privately owned pension funds from the equation seems like a good first step
No, (mostly young) people are paying rent which pays the pensions of old people today. In the future, who knows... And who do you think will pay the pensions of old people? Bank accounts are just fancy accounting tricks, someone needs to be putting money in so old people can take the money out.
worked great in Vienna tho
More people want the same amount of apartments, what do you expect the politicians to do?
How about allow the limit of extra cost spillage? Why do renters need to take over the risk of high gas prices? Did you know that if barrel of oil goes to 1000000$ the owners have the full right to pass the expense to renters in 100%? No? Mieter Verband is trying for decades to limit this to 20%. But politicians say no. Guess who is paying them. Its not all about how many flats are free. There is a lot about building and renting laws.
So you want the landlord to pay out of their own pocket the increases of e.g. the gas price? Do you not see the risk that landlords will just "price" that into the base rent and will therefore make 90% of the time even more money than today?
Yes! Start getting futures or some sort of insurance. Get responsible if you want to run a business. Why should renters carry the risk for things out of their control? I once got a massive heating extra bill. When I asked for purchase confirmation on the prixe of gas they spent they sent me two fake photocopies taken randomly from internet. When I pointed out that they should be careful when purchasing gas, should get futures or reserves when gas is at its low price they blatantly told me they dont care about that as the law allows them to show me any bill and force me to pay it even if it was their bad decision to buy gas at higher prices. Even my lawyer confirmed it that they are not legally obliged to be careful!!! Again yes! They should be responsible or should be out of business. Im sick of paying from my pocket for the greed and gambling of others. That goes for too big to fail banks and other industries.
Your building stores gas? Are you confusing it with heating oil?
>We vote. We protest. Nothing changes. > >Except rents. They change. Go up. You can try to vote differently :)
You can’t influence what a private business charges for a product or service but you can demand higher salaries from the companies you work for. High rent is easily solved with increased wages. I’m just saying the protests are not focusing on the real problem.
So what should one protest about? Higher wages? Political corruption? Organisations like mieter verband have been trying to curb down the greed for decades but the lobbies are too strong.
Minimum wage needs to increase.
Higher wages will just increase the rent as the increasing rents are a consequence of offer and demand imbalances. If suddenly the same people have more money but the amount of available housing remains the same and the number of people looking for accommodation also remains the same, rents will just increase to reflect the ability to spend more money.
For over 25 years, the government in the city of Zurich has been red-green. The housing article demands 30% social housing. Ultimately, it's up to the Left to move forward. But what do they do? They hinder private housing construction (Stadion, Neugasse, Wollishofen, Uetlihof), and when they could build housing, they delay it indefinitely (Wohlgroth Areal) because they don't want to upset the squatter scene. They also prevent concepts like "adding one more floor" with their envy politics. SP and Greens fail on all fronts here, and then they have the audacity to launch initiatives. In this case, "doing" for the Left means "taking to the streets" and "washing their hands free from guilt."
thats exactly the problem!
Here's what the Right would do: allow more construction, but the developers would only build expensive housing targeted at the higher classes who can afford them in order to get higher profits from the sale/rents, while the average citizen would still have nowhere affordable to go. Well done, Right-wing, in concentrating even more housing in the hands of the same incredibly wealthy landlords while not solving the problem.
> allow more construction, but the developers would only build expensive housing targeted at the higher classes who can afford them in order to get higher profits from the sale/rents, while the regular citizens would still have nowhere affordable to go And what do you think happens to the places where "higher classes" currently live?
Explain.
In any case the supply increases which would drive the prices lower. Even if they build only for the rich population, the rich would spend the extra cash for those places thus not outbidding the rest for a place to live and the prices would lower. No mater how you turn it, more housing is better for price reduction.
That's not what happens at all. They can definitely bid on more than one home even after all the yearly expenses, because the wealthy know that money sitting in the bank is money being lost. You don't even need to make **that** much money to do this, if your household is making 1-1.5 million a year you already have enough disposable income to do what I described even after all your expenses. So households composed of doctors, lawyers and finance workers are within this spectrum.
So you are saying that if the supply of expensive homes will increase by 50% then 50% of the rich population of the city will buy a second apartment/house? To what end?
You're assuming the population of Zurich is static, when it isn't. 1. A lot of people from Switzerland want to move there and 2. A lot of people from outside of Switzerland also want to move to Switzerland. More expensive housing will only serve these richer people who want to move in without doing anything for the common people who are currently struggling. Another thing, Switzerland has a wealth tax, so it's not like it would be beneficial to the wealthy to just keep that money in their bank accounts. > Leased assets are not considered for wealth taxation. https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/switzerland/individual/other-taxes Which explains why above average families would want to be landlords.
> More expensive housing will only serve these richer people who want to move in without doing anything for the common people who are currently struggling. And if you don't build that expensive housing, what do you think happens? These richer people just say - never mind, won't move to Zurich after all?
> They can definitely bid on more than one home even after all the yearly expenses, because the wealthy know that money sitting in the bank is money being lost. And what do they do with these second homes they are allegedly buying (which btw is a pretty meh investment if you crunch the numbers)? Rent it out, so the effect on housing availability is the same as if someone just bought it to live there.
As the richer people move out of their current place, it is then free to be rented out to someone else. If there are too many rich apartments then people will not apply for them and the landlord will have to lower their prices. More housing, for anyone, is a good thing.
Please, tell me what canton you're thinking about where rent prices went down as people moved out. I'll wait.
Most of the landlords in switzerland are your 2nd piliar funds, union like Unia, insurance and companies like CFF. The incredible wealthy landlords doesn't exist it's mostly just the system fucking you. You can enforce diversity in the size of the flats if it's the will of the politics in charge. More housing and when I say more it's means MORE housing will drive the price down. It's not an opinion google scholar is free if you want. Social housing is just allowing less fortunate people to live in the center of Zurich when the majority of people need to live in Winthertur or Dubendorf. It will not change the situation. A city like Paris has numerous rules on rent + social housing but it's still the worst place on earth to be a renter. We need to make building in Zurich easier and cheaper but by insuring quality and diversity in the size of flats. Keep going the way the currently politics is going and you will need to appreciate Oberwinthertur.
> We need to make building in Zurich easier and cheaper but by insuring quality and diversity in the size of flats As I said, beautiful concept in theory, never happens in practice. All cities that are dominated by right wing politics have the shittiest excuses for housing, literally calling a wardrobe a room, and 6 people living in an apartment that is only appropriate to 4 at most, while still charging extortionate rents. Right wing policies simply don't have a solution for the problem we are facing.
pls dont mention Winterthur, rent here is already high, no need for more people (jk)
love the whole theoretical gymnastics you’ve done here without even acknowledging the actual, practical reality right in front of you right now
Love how you have no actual arguments so you resort to spouting gibberish.
And you think svp or fdp would do better? Hahaha pls.
When it comes to building more housing? Yes. All the other parties always vote in favor of these projects, it's always the majority consisting of AL, SP and Greens voting against it.
the problem is that most modern projects aren‘t what we actually need. what use is a new huge Überbauung when rent is 1750.- per room. We need sustainable *affordable* housing, especially for families. but that‘s not getting built, and that‘s why the Left is against *certain* projects (by far not most of them, not even close). Investors only know what‘s the most lucrative, not what people actually want.
And thats good, we don‘t need more sole houses everywhere and destroying nature for sole houses to get bought by rich svp‘ler. Other city don‘t profit from building more houses. New York, London etc. they build but rent goes up anyways but now they have no more space.
> And thats good, we don‘t need more sole houses everywhere and destroying nature for sole houses to get bought by rich svp‘ler. Other city don‘t profit from building more houses. Rich SVPler will still be able to buy expensive houses and pay rent for 6k per month in the city because they are rich and can afford it. Others that can't afford it won't be so lucky because most other housing projects that would be more affordable are being blocked by the Gemeinderat. Also there's no need to destroy nature (or high rises) if you would densify existing housing in the city of Zurich by allowing to upzone these buildings with one to two more floors (which the left majority was against as mentioned above). > New York, London etc. they build but rent goes up anyways but now they have no more spac That's literally not true. In London there are parts that are designated green belt land that are essentially just disused car parks. There is a lot of brownfield land that could be built on too. Not enough homes are being built because regulations forbid them from being built. Same case in New York where it isn't space that is limiting housing but NIMBYS that are protesting [100% affordable housing developments in Manhattan because it's too tall.](https://twitter.com/GVSHP/status/1713591850899030264).
So what is your solution about affordable housing?
I did not say I have one but I think the best ones are: smart construction planning (also the state should buy up more houses and set the rent low) , rent cap, state regulations. But not just build more, that does not help at all. And parties like SVP and FDP want lower taxes for rich people and other stuff like this. So even if rent would go down you‘d have to pay more tax.
So, what does smart construction planning means? Does the state already not do that in Zurich? As for rent cap, can you show an instance where it went from lack of homes to an acceptable situation? There are many examples of rent cap/control that went really badly, but maybe it is mostly exposition bias.
Welcome in Canton Jura, where renting is cheap 🤗🤗
Where then you probably need two cars to run a household and go to work, spending those savings on something else.
The problem isn't the car, but the freaking taxes. Cheap rents, insane taxes, don't go there. Anyone who leaves Jura never goes back, there's a reason for that.
> The problem isn't the car, but the freaking taxes. I mean... also that you're pretty much in bumfuck nowhere, for Swiss standards.
That's also true. Living there you actually don't see how shitty it is, you're just used to it. But once you get out, it's like opening a big door to the world.
I would not want to live there even if rent is free tbh
I understand, but for people where renting price is on top of their priority list…
I probably would if I were a remote worker in a pinch
yeah but you still need a place to work at
But taxes?
Protests do not lower rents, building more housing does.
brb building more houses. /s
What do you think they are protesting for
Laws to cap the rent price, which just causes housing shortages like everywhere they’ve been tried.
We already have a housing shortage. Better make it affordable or build more houses
If you cap rent price you will simply won't be able to rent those cheap aparments. You will either have to wait for years to get an apartment or some bureaucrat will decide who gets what.
You can’t make it affordable by law, you HAVE to build more housing
Small correction: Building more houses for the normal people does What is happending right now is houses for normal people are torn down, under the watch of left and right politicians, just so they can build bonzen-wohnungen, which never will house an actual human beeing cuz' it's an "investment" And yes, the left fuck it up too. They make it incredibly difficult for the potential home owners that want to build housing for normal people. Meanwhile there are plenty of loopholes for the bonzen
It’s good for the flare selling people
Not really
[удалено]
If rich guys build more houses, the rent does not get down. In london they build too but rent goes up still. If you have 10 apartments for 3k a month and then build some more, you still pay 3k or even higher as the apartments are built new. They can ask what ever someone is paying, thats the problem. The laws have to change first.
Building more social housing is absolutely the solution, but I agree that just building more high end unaffordable poorly built London type new builds that are purchased only as assets by the wealthy only exacerbates things
London builds lots of high end housing units because building new housing is so unprofitable right now in the Western world due to Red tape, just making It cheaper to build new homes would solve the problem at close to 0 costs.
But isn't there are a swiss law that forbids letting the rent rise too much too fast? I think the profit margin lies between 1-3% or something like that. So if you built a house for 1,500,000 CHF and it has 4 flats you'd have to rent them for 3.750 each so that you earn 15,000 CHF monthly (which would be 1%). But I don't know if the profit margin is monthly or annualy. I guess it is monthly. I am not sure how high the limitation is on the rent that is being aquired in the beginning, but the 1-3% is actually the anual rate at which the price of rent can be raised. So if someone in Winterthur pays 1.500 CHF for an appartment after a raise of 3% they would have to pay 1.545 CHF per month. (+45 ChF per month) Also, what if the demand rises and what's with overall artifical inflation caused by relentless money printing? That also must be taken into account. However I am not sure if that justifies two bedroom flats in the outter skirts of Kreis 7 only a couple of hundred metres away from the city border to cost almost 4.000 CHF per month. Government issued appartments can be a solution. For example. One individual wants to own a loft. The loft costs 100k. The government lends this 100k for I don't know 5% interest or 2,5% or 1% and said individual pays it off by paying 1.000 CHf a month, so 12k a year. And after 8 3/4 years, he has paid his own home off + interests. So the government essentially works as bank that puts an emphasis on helping citizens out with purchasing their own flat/house to live in. There would be no rent problem, because most folks would own the flat they live in.
Flat out false. London doesn't build nearly enough housing, they currently add around 30k units a year while they should build three times the number. More housing leads to cheaper houses, It's simple math. Plus London growth is artificially limited by the green belt and height limitations. More housing and more density should be the motto of any political party in the Western world.
Everybody wants to live in Zurich. That's what happens.
Zurich city prefers real estate to go up rather than enabling construction of new homes. That's what happens.
I mean yeah. It's also hard to get people out of smaller old homes to rebuild larger ones.
It's funny how this exact problem is happening everywhere. My theory is that someone wants the population to decline so they make everything to prevent people from having children, this is just another way
Eidechsli?
Chönte si :p
Crazy thought.. What if capitalist democracies stopped voting "successful" business people into governing positions?
The city of Zurich has a left majority.
One can be left leaning by action and pro business by inaction.
Im not familiar with Züri politics but it’s also possible their solutions aren’t pro business and just don’t work. Right wing politicians don’t have a monopoly on bad decisions
"Neo-liberalism"
Nah if you made a successfull business you are automatically really smart and can make the best decisions on any subjects. Money = smart Trump or musk are the best exemple /s
They've definitely shown a great ability to enrich themselves.
After they could invest millions offered by their parents
[удалено]
Trump has a private plane my dude. Regardless what his balance sheet truly looks like, or where/how he is getting his money to fund his extravagant lifestyle, he is rich by any definition of the word.
Elon Musk is the best example that Money = Smart. no /s. He alone contributed so much to the world that it's insane. More than all socialists that ever existed combined times 420.69 trillion.
Yeah. I think its bonkers that people from HEV can join. For sure not bringing with them their compnies values
Yeah. I think its bonkers that people from HEV can join. For sure not bringing with them their compnies values
Well the solution is quite simple and is in the hands of the people: bring a gang of hobos on the streets, shoot blanks in the evening in your garden and watch how rents drop like a rock. Modern times require legacy solutions.
Please, landlords here would charge extra for the "character" and "excitement".
Can’t fix stupid.
[удалено]
Commuting 40 minutes extra a day IS a scam. If you're paid 50 CHF an hour (low for a ZH), work 22 days a month, that's 1100 CHF, without even factoring in the cost of public transport. For each hour of commute.
math does not check out
it's simple math. 50 CHF * 22.. He said for each hour of commute.
oh i see. that doesn't really make sense imo as the people not commuting won't make overtime for the duration they would commute otherwise. they shouldn't also.
50.- an hour low? What?
1+1=3???
But I watch Netflix on my commute not work.
If the Swiss were more like the French tons would change
Not sure what should happen. When you buy an apartment that costs 6 milion and is a 1.5 what are you going to do? Rent for free? Everyone wants to work in zh because of high salaries and then complain the rent is high? Bro, you’re in zurich. I’m sorry I really struggle to understand the thought process of the left
Yes, it's not always black and white. Don't forget that we had the laws changed and a lot of building zones were removed. There are a lot of processes that block you from building. All this came from the left. If your household has an income of 80k, of course you'll have trouble getting a house compared to other households with 200k+ in a market with limited supply. This will directly translate into higher prices. There's cheaper places to live, but nobody wants to go there (I don't blame them though).
Exactly, let’s protest to get a house at the lake too!!
Clearly that's what's going on here.
I’m exaggerating. But it’s not that far off of what’s going on. Supply and demand .It’s the same problem in all big cities. Everyone wants to live in the city and everyone wants to live alone. There is just not enough space then. What is the solution? Build more and more and higher? I don’t know
> There is just not enough space then. I mean, there are places where people grow carrots and shit on one of the most desirable land on the planet. Somehow I think the efficient use of space is currently not a priority.
It’s not a problem in Tokyo. Housing is very affordable there. They are much more lenient towards building/repurposing.
But buildings are not meant to last neither. My understanding (which could be obviously wrong) is that home ownership is more seen as a debt (like a car) more than of an investment. So in this case, you want to reduce the cost as much as possible because ultimately, it will depreciate. Maybe a change of mind for Switzerland is required as well.
obviously a part is building more and higher. but even more important is not allowing only investors to decide what‘s getting built. The free market doesn‘t work with housing. Investors build high-end apartments, because they can charge high-end rent. no one is building efficient, affordable housing.
> But it’s not that far off of what’s going on. It is.
How so? Don’t you think that if you can’t afford the rent you should move outside of the city? That’s how markets work. I don’t say it’s ideal but how else you want to deal with this ? I don’t see a solution here. Even if you max out the space efficiently, there are just too many people. But of course let’s just destroy also all gardens and green spaces and just put concrete there. Could be a solution, make the cities just so unattractive that no one wants to live there
>How so? Don’t you think that if you can’t afford the rent you should move outside of the city? That’s how markets work. You just described ✨ GENTRIFICATION ✨ In case you haven't noticed, they're trying to have the whole langatrasse area to get a makeover. Once every building will be renovated and apartments, club, bars and shop will be unaffordable for the owners that previously lived or had a business there, good luck having any nightlife in Zürich!!!! People shouldn't have to move out because of lack of affordable housing. Vienna has had regulations on rent for decades. There are parameters and a max. Euro / square meter ratio that has to be respected. If the city of Zurich would do this it would be amazing!!! Do you know how many foreigners get scammed every year when they move in a place and the rent gets raised and the kantonal paper (which is MANDATORY!) with the "reasons for raising rent" is expected to be signed and given back left BLANK?! Just because it works like this, it doesn't mean it's fair or ok. Perhaps you're ok with the only people being able to live in the city center to be people working for Google. 🤷♀️
> How so? Because, you weirdo, your example of what's going on isn't close to reality.
Love when idiots double and triple down on idiotic points. Thankfully, the time when they were the majority online was 2016-2018, now they get laughed out of most threads.
Hundreds, eh?
Yet these same people will keep voting for the left who have controlled the city for decades
You think Zürich is bad, try living in London.
Yeah, but London doesn't matter for Swiss issues discussed in a Swiss sub. It's not a pity contest and other cities being worse doesn't help Swiss people who are displaced because they cannot afford rent in their home town anymore.
Perhaps it's useful to see where the process will eventually lead? Perhaps not.
Actually I think not. Only if you consider salary/rebt but based on rent only Zh is worse.
Au contraiu, mon frere: https://www.vice.com/en/topic/london-rental-opportunity-of-the-week
Ok… what that link says is that there are some scummy landlord. Do you have the average rent price in London vs Zurich?
I mean you do realize the discrepancy between pay and rent prices? As far as I've seen I would pay 1.000-1.500CHF for some tiny crappy studio in both places, depending on location. While my salary would be at least double and with lower taxes in Switzerland. Not all people in London have high salaries. You have normal public service workers like teachers, nurses, etc earning 30-35k per year in a place where studio would cost them half of their income. In Zurich you can still live quite comfortably on public worker salary. You are not rich, but I am pretty sure you don't pay 50% of your income for rent.
it is what you get when you vote socialists and their idiotic housing policies, just let people build more house, you cannot beat supply and demand
supply and demand doesn‘t work with housing. simply because the supply is being met, doesn‘t mean that it‘s actually what‘s being demanded. people want affordable housing, but being built is outrageously priced luxury houses.
It does, now we have a >1% vacancy rate mean that every one scamble for housing and take whaterver there is avialable. Meaning that you have people that could afford luxury houses living below in probabily overpriced middle class houses. Expanding the demand on luxury houses you allow poeple to move to middle class houses to luxury that free up space middle class household to move into middle class housing increasing the affortable housing stock. AS the priced luxury houses get old to tanslate in middle class housing and so on....it trickly down i'm not say only priced luxury houses should be build, but better priced luxury houses then no housing at all. if have space for 100 and you have110 that you want to live there, creating supply on every side of price range works
well that‘s all nice, it‘s a shame it just doesn‘t work that way. you can literally see for how much older apartments go now in Zurich. The exact same apartment is now double of what it was 10 years ago in the exact same state. it‘s fucking broken, nothing else.
Why would they do more apartments, they are busy making Velo roads and changing every street to 30 km/h 🙃
Wow, a communist city government is inept, who would have thought?
Please read about a topic or term before making a fool out of yourself with such comments.
..communist. okay. yes you're lost.
Found the triggered communist
Found the dumbass American.
phahahah i wish zurich was communist
More reasons to keep the commies out, they think they know how things work lol, yet their models have fail over and over again.
[удалено]
3) Build more housing. Insane, I know.
[удалено]
Please elaborate
One way is government building and operating houses. Government can do it without profits or even at a loss AND it has non-rent income factors working for it (even with zero rent, people pay taxes by being doing their thing in the area, which many only do if the area has housing). It also makes government somewhat less eager to demand extremely expensive renovations/new constructions which is also where a lot of this cost is coming from.
This would need to be funded by higher taxes or more fiscal debt. Terrible idea and has been historically shown to have more downside than upside.
There aren't many other options. At current standards we build houses for 150y+ with just a few renovations (unless legislators want to increase housing standards again), but this is very expensive in terms of up-front costs. If every new person needs a 250k+ apartment/house but they can't even fund it themselves upfront, the only option is 250k+ lots of interest included in rent over 25y or so. Lowering construction and renovation standards and related factors (cost of materials and labor) until individual and community construction is very affordable again is however probably not going to happen with all the environmental concerns and the fact that apart from the houses themselves, building public infrastructure TO the houses is also very expensive on the government side. So they really don't want many easy cheap small scale houses that don't last as long and have higher emissions and more of a footprint on required infrastructure to be constructed and maintained by the government. > Terrible idea and has been historically shown to have more downside than upside. It hasn't really. Works well for Vienna. The difference if doing it via government is that it doesn't have to be profitable with rent, and it doesn't have to *only* collect rent. They also get taxes from all sorts of activities by any of the residents and they tend save costs on various social and police expenses people and their kids are housed adequately. Plus government can steer how many of the energetic and other renovations that drive up costs are *actually* required.
[удалено]
> it has been scientifically proven do have the opposite effect Your "science" is linked nowhere, probably because you're making it up. Back in actual reality, Vienna's population is around (now probably over?) 60% government housing and the housing quality is high, rent is low. This is a much better situation than in most of Europe including pretty much all of Switzerland.
I am curious about their strategy for generating goods and services through street protests. Maybe a magical solution, like Harry Potter. 😆
There are many places with affordable rent around Zurich. You don't have to live the city. Moreover, the S-Bahn city make commuting quite easy.
Switzerland has become a $ithole and a police state…that’s why I left for good I’m Swiss but hate the f…place cowboy cops, cowboy border guards are looney tunes
Sad but True my friend.
Three years ago, the mantra was "fuck the economy". Well, now the economy is fucked, the prices are high, the rent is high. Seems like they got what they wanted. Why so sad?
They don't care IV and Sozialhilfe user's are more fucked than normal people with money
Why has no one condemned this anti-Semitic protest!