3 ms·

Why should an industry that has existed for thousands of years have a high premium? Why would you want the houses of the world to cost more, so less people cou

Why should an industry that has existed for thousands of years have a high premium? Why would you want the houses of the world to cost more, so less people could have them? Low house prices and low land prices allow humans to actually use them. Stop seeing what is good, as bad. Dirty capital class casuals.

EpicEng 10y ago
I'm sure you'll think this way until you eventually grow up and buy some land of your own. Then come back and tell us how much you appreciate a tanking real estate market.
- HappyFunGuy 10y ago
  I sure you'll think this way, until eventually you grow up and develop some empathy of your own. Then come back and tell us how much you appreciate a world where no man can afford to own his own home, and all homes are owned by banks. Disclaimer, I am a proud member of the capital class.
  - refurb 10y ago
    Home ownership in the US is over 60%. What should it be? 100%?
    - HappyFunGuy 10y ago
      Perhaps by "home ownership", you really mean "owned by the bank that holds your mortgage" is at 60%?
      - refurb 10y ago
        Are you arguing that the only true form of home ownership is a fully paid off home? That's a high bar.
- wlievens 10y ago
  If you don't intend to sell antytime soon, that's not si very important
paulpauper 10y ago
have you ever heard of supply and demand? There is no conspiracy to make homes expensive
- maxsilver 10y ago
  > There is no conspiracy to make homes expensive There's no "conspiracy" -- but there is a blatant attempt to make homes expensive. In fact, in the US I'd argue that every single person and organization in the entire nation, is doing everything possible to inflate housing costs (or "property values") as high as possible, in literally every market. Either directly, or indirectly. The entire US economy seems built around raising property values. Some examples include : - Attend a local school board meeting. They want to improve an particular area school. Why? For better educational results, or safer student experiences? Eh, sort of. Then they mention how, if they can improve the perceived quality of the school, more families will prefer to live in that school district, raising demand which raises property values, increasing the funding for the school.... - Attend a local police neighborhood meeting. They want to divert some regular patrols to a specific neighborhood to be a visible show of force there. Why? To make the area safer for residents? Eh, sort of. They mention how the area's makeup often 'incites' crime, because the buildings are old, run down, or abandoned, and the people who live there are almost exclusively poor. If they can convince people the area has improved in safety, by overstating police presence, wealthier people might be less nervous about moving in to a poor neighborhood. They might increase demand for high-scale trendy businesses or replace old homes with fancy urban condos, both driving property values up. Wealthier people have higher incomes, pay more in city income tax, which partially funds the local police force... - Attend a "friends of the parks" meeting. These guys have no authority, they're just fans of the parks. But they're trying to convince the neighbors to vote for a new tax millage to improve the parks. Why? To provide more a nicer experience to residents using parks? Eh, sort of. They mention how well-maintained parks improve the perception of a neighborhood, and how the tax millage costs money, but adds significantly more in property value than it costs in taxes, so effectively residents would be voting themselves free money... - Attend my own HOA meeting. Property developer wants to build rentals in the neighborhood, wants the HOA to vote to allow them to build this. They predict a 20% increase in property values due to the businesses/amenities the extra people will attract. HOA board wants to block this and build more single-family homes. Because they believe by reducing supply, their own houses will get a 30% increase in property values. The two go back and forth trying to convince people, using the basis of "how much free money your 'investment' will gain, and how quickly." - Attend the local chamber of commerce. Local business owners are all excited about a new datacenter being built one town over. Do they like the company, or will they ever use the service? Not really. Will they get more business from the new employees? Not really (they'll only have maybe 30-40 people on site each day -- it's a drop in the bucket for them). They're excited because the area will have to house those new people, which will likely prompt the construction of a new neighborhood, sending the value of nearby commercial properties up, which they can use to reduce their debt load or borrow against to expand their business.... When you start thinking about it, almost every single decision and action in the entire economy can be traced back to someone somewhere inflating property values. And it's impossible not to contribute to this somehow -- the act of housing yourself (an essential need) is a direct contributor to this, no matter whether you rent or buy. Anyone not on the treadmill is effectively waging a quixotic battle against the entire economy. It's not a "conspiracy" (no one is hiding this. If anything, it's being championed publicly as a good thing). But it definitely seems like a problem -- the world isn't making wealthy people fast enough to let this happen forever. All these poor and middle class people have to live somewhere.

EpicEng 10y ago

I'm sure you'll think this way until you eventually grow up and buy some land of your own. Then come back and tell us how much you appreciate a tanking real estate market.

HappyFunGuy 10y ago
I sure you'll think this way, until eventually you grow up and develop some empathy of your own. Then come back and tell us how much you appreciate a world where no man can afford to own his own home, and all homes are owned by banks. Disclaimer, I am a proud member of the capital class.
- refurb 10y ago
  Home ownership in the US is over 60%. What should it be? 100%?
  - HappyFunGuy 10y ago
    Perhaps by "home ownership", you really mean "owned by the bank that holds your mortgage" is at 60%?
    - refurb 10y ago
      Are you arguing that the only true form of home ownership is a fully paid off home? That's a high bar.
wlievens 10y ago
If you don't intend to sell antytime soon, that's not si very important

paulpauper 10y ago

have you ever heard of supply and demand? There is no conspiracy to make homes expensive

maxsilver 10y ago
> There is no conspiracy to make homes expensive There's no "conspiracy" -- but there is a blatant attempt to make homes expensive. In fact, in the US I'd argue that every single person and organization in the entire nation, is doing everything possible to inflate housing costs (or "property values") as high as possible, in literally every market. Either directly, or indirectly. The entire US economy seems built around raising property values. Some examples include : - Attend a local school board meeting. They want to improve an particular area school. Why? For better educational results, or safer student experiences? Eh, sort of. Then they mention how, if they can improve the perceived quality of the school, more families will prefer to live in that school district, raising demand which raises property values, increasing the funding for the school.... - Attend a local police neighborhood meeting. They want to divert some regular patrols to a specific neighborhood to be a visible show of force there. Why? To make the area safer for residents? Eh, sort of. They mention how the area's makeup often 'incites' crime, because the buildings are old, run down, or abandoned, and the people who live there are almost exclusively poor. If they can convince people the area has improved in safety, by overstating police presence, wealthier people might be less nervous about moving in to a poor neighborhood. They might increase demand for high-scale trendy businesses or replace old homes with fancy urban condos, both driving property values up. Wealthier people have higher incomes, pay more in city income tax, which partially funds the local police force... - Attend a "friends of the parks" meeting. These guys have no authority, they're just fans of the parks. But they're trying to convince the neighbors to vote for a new tax millage to improve the parks. Why? To provide more a nicer experience to residents using parks? Eh, sort of. They mention how well-maintained parks improve the perception of a neighborhood, and how the tax millage costs money, but adds significantly more in property value than it costs in taxes, so effectively residents would be voting themselves free money... - Attend my own HOA meeting. Property developer wants to build rentals in the neighborhood, wants the HOA to vote to allow them to build this. They predict a 20% increase in property values due to the businesses/amenities the extra people will attract. HOA board wants to block this and build more single-family homes. Because they believe by reducing supply, their own houses will get a 30% increase in property values. The two go back and forth trying to convince people, using the basis of "how much free money your 'investment' will gain, and how quickly." - Attend the local chamber of commerce. Local business owners are all excited about a new datacenter being built one town over. Do they like the company, or will they ever use the service? Not really. Will they get more business from the new employees? Not really (they'll only have maybe 30-40 people on site each day -- it's a drop in the bucket for them). They're excited because the area will have to house those new people, which will likely prompt the construction of a new neighborhood, sending the value of nearby commercial properties up, which they can use to reduce their debt load or borrow against to expand their business.... When you start thinking about it, almost every single decision and action in the entire economy can be traced back to someone somewhere inflating property values. And it's impossible not to contribute to this somehow -- the act of housing yourself (an essential need) is a direct contributor to this, no matter whether you rent or buy. Anyone not on the treadmill is effectively waging a quixotic battle against the entire economy. It's not a "conspiracy" (no one is hiding this. If anything, it's being championed publicly as a good thing). But it definitely seems like a problem -- the world isn't making wealthy people fast enough to let this happen forever. All these poor and middle class people have to live somewhere.