Visiting German cities has always been my childhood nightmare with all the homeless hobos and beggars, it has not improved since, just getting worse.
I feel like this is a bit misleading, but I could be reading it wrong. It looks like it’s giving the percentage of social housing out of the total housing in a given area, but to be reflective of the housing issues it would need to include the population percentage that requires social housing , would it not?
As a Czech who worked with social housing authorities, I’d like to point out two things (that would instantly put Czechia much higher in the graph):
*”For the Czech Republic, data only contains dwellings provided by the central government.”*
– **towns and cities also own flats and I’d even say overall they own much more than central authority, there are also organisations managed by regional authorities with housing facilities (shelters for men, women, families with children, homeless people, recover convicts, etc…)**
*”the stock of residential rental accommodation provided at submarket prices and allocated according to specific rules rather than market mechanisms”*
– **this is also something, that cannot be generalized, because e.g. when you apply for social housing in Prague, you have to win “rent auction” (therefore you use market mechanism) and after that you pass the rent to the social affairs department of the town/city (so the rent is high but you are not paying it, the authorities do)**
If all data are poorly managed like that, the graph has virtually no meaning and says nothing.
The thought that polticians and authorities make decisions based on such shi**y job, genuinely frightens me.
6 comments
[Source](https://www.oecd.org/els/family/PH4-2-Social-rental-housing-stock.pdf)
So, US has more social housing than Germany
The Dutch supply is not close to meeting the housing needs of the poor. We need another 10% market share to do that.
​
To be honest, I’m shocked how bad the situation is in other countries.
III
What’s wrong with Germany? They are a wealthy economy, but have lower [median wealth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult) than we have and one of the lowest [home ownership](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate). They should be the prime candidate for social housing.
Visiting German cities has always been my childhood nightmare with all the homeless hobos and beggars, it has not improved since, just getting worse.
I feel like this is a bit misleading, but I could be reading it wrong. It looks like it’s giving the percentage of social housing out of the total housing in a given area, but to be reflective of the housing issues it would need to include the population percentage that requires social housing , would it not?
As a Czech who worked with social housing authorities, I’d like to point out two things (that would instantly put Czechia much higher in the graph):
*”For the Czech Republic, data only contains dwellings provided by the central government.”*
– **towns and cities also own flats and I’d even say overall they own much more than central authority, there are also organisations managed by regional authorities with housing facilities (shelters for men, women, families with children, homeless people, recover convicts, etc…)**
*”the stock of residential rental accommodation provided at submarket prices and allocated according to specific rules rather than market mechanisms”*
– **this is also something, that cannot be generalized, because e.g. when you apply for social housing in Prague, you have to win “rent auction” (therefore you use market mechanism) and after that you pass the rent to the social affairs department of the town/city (so the rent is high but you are not paying it, the authorities do)**
If all data are poorly managed like that, the graph has virtually no meaning and says nothing.
The thought that polticians and authorities make decisions based on such shi**y job, genuinely frightens me.