I'll set you a little task. Its a task I've already set you and you've failed. But heck, I'm a glutton for punishment. Respond to the feckin article that you didn't even read: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00127 An apology would also be nice. Something like "Sorry for being a standard right winger who didn't even engage in the debate and just ranted"?
Of course you can, like you've done the last two times you've responded to me. I mean you can pretend you didn't just like you can pretend you have a debatable argument. I think YOU didn't read your own article. Show me where in the article it says home ownership has a correlation with mental illness. I'll wait.
No I'll wait for you to show me where your source says home ownership has a causal effect on mental health. Go ahead.
Blah blah blah! You have your reading: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00127 This is going as I said. I'd post evidence and you'd ignore it What a shocker!
So far you've not posted anything that says home ownership has a causal relationship to unemployment or mental health.
Wrong. It says defaulting on your mortgage has a causal effect on mental health. First one: Results: Housing repossession is associated with an increased risk of common mental illness (adjusted odds ratio 1.61, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 2.36) Second one should be obvious even to someone who can't get past a headline Mortgage Debt, Insecure Home Ownership and Health: An Exploratory Analysis
You're showing your ignorance. It finds through BHPS that mortgages and mental health issues are inherently linked. It refers to the standard, such as regression analysis cannot necessarily prove a link (only reject a hypothesis). And of course I supported it with a subsequent BMJ article which supports the nature of the general link: repossession is a major problem. There are actually two areas of proper debate (which will be beyond you). First, the extent that repossessions impact generally on owner occupiers (a standard risk analysis perhaps, but sociologists would go further). Second, the extent that house prices matter (given its not just about repossession, but also maintaining the quality of the housing stock). This is all a tad obvious mind you!
Yes because every mortgage involves a repossession. Hence the title in your second source. Keep digging. It amuses me.
Read carefully! Risk. Its one word, even you lot can grasp it. The risk impacts on the general population. You're so predictable. First, you referred to the wrong literature (how did you achieve that?). Second, you avoid the obvious conclusions (from two papers, I can of course keep digging). Third, you offer nothing in return. Can you offer anything but 'Grunt and Trump'?
I'd say it depends on how much you have invested, and where. If you're talking about a large sum post-retirement....I'd take out whatever you can't afford to lose and reinvest into low yield, low risk stuff. I mean whats the point in risking it all after or right before retirement, no matter how good it is. Make sure you have enough to cover you, and gamble with the rest.
"insecure" is also one word. So is "debt". "Repossession" is another one. I'll give you some time to look them up if you need to. I referred to your sources. I mean I'm sure that home owners not having their houses repossessed have mental health equivalence to those who have lost or are losing their homes. Same stress levels and stuff. Once they become homeless and get rid of the house the rates of mental health drastically increase. You've solved it! A homeless serf is ideal. You don't have the mental illness rates associated with owning a home, AND you're always going to have extremely low unemployment rates.
ramble ramble ramble. And please don't lie. You didn't refer to my sources. I referred to Oswald yonks ago, but focused on heath considerations. You have repeatedly fibbed. That's expected mind you. You were asked whether you could refer to anything but "Grunt and Trump". So far no dice. Another paper on the topic is offered by Smith et al. (Wellbeing at the edges of ownership ,https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0308518X16688471). They conclude: The financial transactions model detects a positive ‘outright ownership’ effect in both countries; there is still a well-being premium attached to the ontological security that unmortgaged owner-occupation represents. Equally, however, the findings indicate that psycho-social stress is a key corollary of debt. This is supported by the observation that engaging in equity borrowing – a transaction designed to improve households’ financial flexibility – independently depresses wellbeing, showing negative effects across all housing pathways. Any thoughts (not just 'grunt and trump' this time mind you)?
I think your own source owned your nonsense in the first sentence. The test of a well-functioning housing system is the wellbeing of its occupants. It may therefore seem encouraging that in jurisdictions dominated by mortgage-backed home ownership, owner-occupiers traditionally report better physical and mental health than renters. During the 2000s, however, in an era of financial crisis, wellbeing at the edges of ownership came under strain. I'd like to recommend you take the time to read your own sources. Again. Once again, you fail, and provide another debt/repossession article.
And you just confirm my expectations. Did you even read the empirical approach and its findings? (No need to answer, we know you're just 'grunt and trump')
You didn't disappoint. The absurdity of home ownership leading to mental illness, well, I guess if someone wants to call sitting on the back porch listening to the crickets at night while sipping a cold one as a mental illness, then there really is no hope for some.
Cheers! I did say I would refer to multiple papers and the other fellow wouldn't. I was right. I'm sure you've read those papers since Gosh, its like you can't construct a coherent argument! I said that there was a positive relationship between home ownership and mental illness. I've supported that with multiple papers already. Didn't you notice? Are you a critic of Trump? Please be one! We need at least some unpredictability from the right wing...
Sorry, I don't bother with you and don't know your posts. I'm sure they're very impressive. However, you've let yourself down on here. I'm sure you'll self-reflect.
I love that he keeps throwing up papers that talk about past-due mortgages and repossession as indicative of how owning a home leads to mental illness. He NEVER disappoints.
I read the paper. You didn't. You pretended it supported your argument of ignorance. It doesn't. You had no excuse as I quoted from its results. Why aren't you able to refer to evidence with any credibility? Answer that.
HAAHA! The right wing hugging routine? Crikey, could you be even more predictable in your inability? Sheeple isn't an argument. Conveniently ignores "engaging in equity borrowing – a transaction designed to improve households’ financial flexibility – independently depresses wellbeing" too!