
Inside Japan’s Disposable Housing Market - igonvalue
http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/inside-japans-disposable-home-market-88133
======
eloisant
<i>"In a culture obsessed with newness"</i>

It's mostly because of earthquakes, they got used to buildings being
temporary.

Also sismic regulations are constantly evolving, so newer is safer (because
more resistant to earthquake thanks to modern technics) and after some time
it's more effective to destroy a building than do the necessary (and
mandatory) work to keep up with the regulations.

So no, the Japanese don't want new houses because it's shiny and they're bored
of the old ones.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I have a completely different understanding of this. Buying a house, the
carpets, the drapes, all have to be replaced. Because of a taboo against using
things soiled by other people. No amount of cleaning can get them clean enough
to overcome a taboo.

Same with cars. There is apparently little/no used car market in Japan. Lots
of our (USA) spare parts for economy cars come over on ships from Japan.
Because, no market there.

~~~
bane
I've seen videos of lots full of perfectly working, but slightly used,
appliances waiting to be dismantled and recycled in Japan. They don't even
bother blocking entrance to the lot and they're mostly unattended, so anybody
_could_ in theory, just drive up and fill their house with all the appliances
they need for nothing.

You also rarely see old cars on the road because (my understanding is) that
taxes incentivize people to ditch old cars quickly and get new ones.

My thinking is this extends through various parts of Japanese society, and
combined with various taboos, is used by the government to help keep the
economy moving. Otherwise, the culturally thrifty Japanese population would
just keep everything they have forever and the economy would be in worse shape
than it is now.

~~~
rcthompson
I feel like it's a fallacy that things need to be constantly thrown out and
replaced for an economy to be healthy. If someone doesn't have to spend $1000
on new appliances, it's not like that thousand dollars disappears from the
economy. Either the person spends that money on something else or sticks it in
their savings account and the bank loans some of it out for someone else to
spend. (This is basic econ theory, so I'm sure it's a little more complicated
than that.) How is it better for an economy when people have to spend money
replacing existing things instead of on buying new stuff?

~~~
bane
> If someone doesn't have to spend $1000 on new appliances, it's not like that
> thousand dollars disappears from the economy.

Yes it does. Modern economic systems are built on consumerism. Saving large
sums of money acts like a vacuum on currency and brings markets to a halt.
Flowing money lubricates the economy.

That's basically the sum total of the most recent economic crisis, money
wasn't moving, so two presidential administrations through gigantic sums of
money at the economy, like spraying it down with WD-40, until it started
moving again.

> Either the person spends that money on something else or sticks it in their
> savings account and the bank loans some of it out for someone else to spend.

The problem is that in aggregate, if nobody is spending money, it doesn't move
around at all. If nobody takes out a loan, then that money just sits in the
bank. Sitting money means nobody needs to manufacture anything because nobody
is buying anything, which means there's no reason to employ anybody, so nobody
makes money. Because times are bad, they save what they have even more and
spending continues to go down.

Fairly quickly the economy goes into a death spiral, and while plenty of
people may have money, there's nothing to spend it on anyway.

China is using the same economic trick that's been used time and time again,
in the U.S., Japan, other places, to kickstart their economy. It's dumping
money into the economy in huge works projects, mostly construction related,
and letting that money slosh around. Japan did it in the 80s, but it's no
longer working as well as it once did, because pretty much everything they
need to build is built, and the population is shrinking so they need even less
things.

~~~
nosuchthing
That theory is based on the assumption that an economy requires consistent
purchase of the same products, so in that theory planned obsolescene is great.
Yet, the alternative to consumers continuously replacing "old" gear with
slightly newer gear is not that a person just deciding they don't want to buy
anything and placing that money in savings, they than have money to buy OTHER
things, or for entertainment, travel, festivals, trips to mars, adding a 3rd
story to their house, et cetera.

~~~
bane
> they than have money to buy OTHER things, or for entertainment, travel,
> festivals, trips to mars, adding a 3rd story to their house, et cetera.

Believe it or not, there really is only so many _other_ things that people
will buy before you start thinking to yourself "hmmm...I'm not using these
things at all and they're taking up space, perhaps I should stop buying
useless things".

It's like my Steam account, hundreds of games I'll never have time to play and
I have no idea why I bought them. So I've stopped paying attention to Steam
Sales and Bundles.

There's only so many appliances, couches, nick-nacks, clothes, electronic
goods that you can fit in your house, and only so much time per year to
travel. At some point (and this really happens), you just stop buying stuff
you don't need to and it just gets piled into various forms of savings.

~~~
nosuchthing
That's great though, once a person has a considerable savings they invest in
new and local businesses or other endeavors, else they simply begin buying
more high quality items.

------
bane
A fantastic resource for understanding this weird market is the "Buying a
House in Japan" playlist on this youtube channel [1]

He goes through lots of this weirdness in the Japanese market as he looks to
buy and restore an older home.

I suspect there's a "let's boost GDP with more construction" problem in Japan.
It's resulted in lots of fantastic infrastructure, but also bizarre half-
formed highways, unfinished bridges, paved over rivers and other things built
way out in the countryside. [2]

1 -
[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE0D149A2A50898A3](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE0D149A2A50898A3)
2 -
[http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-25/403](http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-25/403)

~~~
marak830
Thankyou, ill be checking that out when i get time.

------
marak830
I dont think its as bad as it sounds now. Oh btw my wife is Japanese, and were
currently living in Yokohama. Now there is a taboo againt house from the early
80's(ill have to check with her for the exact date), as there were different
building laws in relation to earthquakes.

Also a lot of the houses that are built with wood are undesirable
-earthquakes, fire risk etc. We just rented a fairly good sized wooden
apartment at quite a bit under market rates.

My point being there is a lot of new houses going up which are built to
seemingly higher standards, which people want, conpared to say my Japabese
grandparents house, which shakes if i move too quickly through it.

I do believe the trend is startibg to switch around though, as more houses
become available in the "higher quality" bracket. (Note: i dont necessarily
agree with the quality perceptions, im more of a case by case kind of guy).

One last thing someone mentioned about second hand cars: There really is a
stigma, we had a mild argument about that the other day haha. I want a used
card (around 4k aud), she wants a new one(12k aud). For shopping -.-

~~~
PhantomGremlin
_a lot of the houses that are built with wood are undesirable -earthquakes,
fire risk etc_

Many American houses are colloquially called "stick houses"[1] because they
are built from 2"x4" or 2"x6" lumber. These are often also called "wood
frame"[2].

In an earthquake I'd rather take my chances in a wood frame house over one
built from bricks, concrete, and rebar. After earthquakes, I've seen too many
collapsed concrete buildings on TV, with people buried under tons of rubble. A
wood frame house is generally too light to collapse in such a way as to
pancake the occupants.

I agree with you in terms of other risks. E.g. we've had a lot of forest fires
this summer, and many wood frame houses were lost. All that remained were the
concrete foundations and the brick fireplaces.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stick-
built_home](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stick-built_home) [2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood-
frame_house](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood-frame_house)

~~~
marak830
I have kind of the same thinking, although during the last big one, my inlaws
house is rebar and it held up amazingly well, while a few around theirs(of
wood), didnt. Not exactly solid evidence though, im not sure on their build
quality, where my father in law paid extra to make his house over
quality(compared to the law based minimums at the time).

------
srunni
> The current of the flowing river does not cease, and yet the water is not
> the same water as before. The foam that floats on stagnant pools, now
> vanishing, now forming, never stays the same for long. So, too, it is with
> the people and dwellings of the world.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C5%8Dj%C5%8Dki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C5%8Dj%C5%8Dki)

------
rwmj
There's a very tiny band of people buying old "Minkas"[1] and restoring them.
My Japanese friends recently moved into one, and it's amazing. Here is an
English article on the subject[2].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minka](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minka)

[2]
[https://spikejapan.wordpress.com/miscellany/](https://spikejapan.wordpress.com/miscellany/)

------
david-given
Australia has a phenomenon called 'removal homes', where you'll buy a house on
one plot of land and ship it, intact, somewhere else.

Example:

[http://www.atlashouseremovers.com.au/](http://www.atlashouseremovers.com.au/)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
My sister in Oklahoma got her 2nd house this way. Freeway ramp going in; house
was free to anyone interested in hauling it away.

Was so tall, they chainsawed 6 feed out of the 2nd storey. Once on site, they
propped it back up, rebuilt the studs and drywall so you couldn't tell it'd
ever happened!

------
debacle
A story similar to this was shared on Reddit a while back and many people
chimed in that the story was massively overblown.

