4 ms·

Housing is a basic necessity, using it as an investment allocates scarce finite resources to you when you don't need it while consuming limited supply thus redu

by zanny 8y ago

Housing is a basic necessity, using it as an investment allocates scarce finite resources to you when you don't need it while consuming limited supply thus reducing the available stock for those that do. The business of buying and selling houses on the flip isn't particularly bad (though it's often predatory and rent seekish) but hoarding property to either rent or just squat to take advantage of the appreciation said hoarding does to drive up prices is evil. Especially when you consider how the entire perverse and unsustainable economic model of endlessly and perpetually rising property values against inflation causes substantive suffering while governments will bend over to preserve it since the landlords are the wealthy interests they want to appease to stay in power. There are much less amoral, much more productive, and much less predatory ways to grow wealth. Whenever anyone looks at residential property as an infinite profit machine it is a failure of the society to produce productive & positive investment options for that wealth.

snowwindwaves 8y ago
There is loads of cheap housing in USA and Canada - just not in popular places. Anyone moaning about the price of real estate should check to make sure they aren't trying to live in one of the most desirable places to live on the planet.
- Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
  How far should people be expected to commute from these less diserable locations to their place of employment? Localities with an abundance of cheap housing tend to have significantly higher unemployment rates[1], [1] https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/employment-research/is-local-unemployment-related-to-local-housing-prices https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/employment-rese...
  - pdimitar 8y ago
    Let's include pressure to work remotely in the whole equation. I see no reason why humanity must crowd trample each other in tiny metropolitan areas when there are so many affordable -- and likely more beautiful -- places to live in. Have basic infrastructure in place, internet excluded, and the problem is solved.
    - ajmurmann 8y ago
      The have been several studies that showed that cities foster innovation and living in larger cities leads to faster increase in income. It's also cheaper for society as a whole to provide good infrastructure in one place rather than spreading it out. Unfortunately we are currently hiding that cost and people living in cities are subsidizing the costs of roads and other infrastructure for people in low density areas.
      - pdimitar 8y ago
        I would seriously question those studies. You should probably add the increased stress and the lack of leisure time that make people mentally unhealthy. I am also seriously not okay with the implication that the cities support all other areas. That's extremely questionable. Lastly, don't forget there have been studies proving fat is bad and sugar is good. Never discount the vested interests that know how to convince people. Apparently you have been influenced by a study. Not saying you shouldn't believe anything, but maintain a healthy skepticism, please. I live in the only true big city in my country and truthfully, people are in general happier everywhere else in the country. At least they say so and sound like it.
        Aeolun 8y ago
        I don’t think the fact that cities support the surrounding countryside has been very controversial since the 1500’s. It kind of makes sense. If 10% of the surface area needs 90% of the resources, they are going to be easier to provide than for the remaining 90% of the area (mainly because spreading things like doctors, hospitals and supermarkets around to serve a few hundred people is not easy).
        ajmurmann 8y ago
        Just utilities and roads alone are a massive cost that makes spread out living enormously costly and I pay as much for it living in a high rise building without owning a car as I do living somewhere in the suburbs or the country side with utilities and roads running very far to reach my lot. strongtowns.com is full of information on how we subsidize suburbs and rural living.
- mistermann 8y ago
  Cheap is a relative term. What does the affordability ratio (price vs local available incomes) look like compared to historical norms? Are these places cheap on that basis, or only when compared to the insane prices in desirable places?
- ajmurmann 8y ago
  It still seems less than ideal to have people live in places that require long commutes or result in lower income jobs (likely meaning they could be more productive elsewhere) so that someone can accumulate investment properties in the more desirable areas? To me this seems like someone complaining that prices of vegetables and meat going up due to speculation and someone pointing out that rice and bread are still cheap.
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  Another way of putting this is: there's lots of cheap housing where there's only cheap jobs to match. It's a pick your poison situation, and it doesn't have to be. Singapore and Vienna are good examples of public housing programs, Tokyo is a good example of the market providing reasonable rent relative to how desirable/big/rich the area is.
chiph 8y ago
This guy invested $30k in getting a (very) run-down home into decent shape. He had a tenant within a week of putting it up for rent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q8pf-Ad0w0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q8pf-Ad0w0 Not sure how his actions are evil or rent-seeking in any way.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
CryptoPunk 8y ago
>>Housing is a basic necessity, using it as an investment allocates scarce finite resources to you when you don't need it while consuming limited supply thus reducing the available stock for those that do. Using it as an investment doesn't deprive others from using it. Using it as an investment means renting the property out to earn investment income on it. And investing leads to that scarce resource becoming less scarce, through construction and expansion of housing supply. Capital leads to abundance. Combating capital investments in housing leads to more housing scarcity. That's exactly what zoning restrictions and rent control do, and why some places have housing scarcity.
skybrian 8y ago
This doesn't make sense. Housing that's being rented out is in use by renters. No property is being wasted. Taking properties off the rental market will drive rents up. What do you have against renters? Vacant property is being wasted. Not too much of that, though. Morally speaking, a housing market has much in common with a traffic jam or a crowded bus. Everyone takes up space, though some more than others. If you're living somewhere that housing is scarce, you're a small part of the problem, according to the space you take up. The only way to not be part of the problem is to move away. It doesn't make sense to pick on some of the people in a crowd for making it crowded, assuming they're all taking a similar amount of space.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jouster 7y ago
You are retarded. A huge number of people want to rent for one reason or another. A lot of people can only ever afford to rent because they choose to not save their money. Chastising people who work in the rental market is really, really dumb. Would you rather make it illegal to rent? Buy a house or be homeless? Or maybe you want all housing to be Soviet apartment blocks? Just shut up dude.

by zanny 8y ago

snowwindwaves 8y ago

There is loads of cheap housing in USA and Canada - just not in popular places. Anyone moaning about the price of real estate should check to make sure they aren't trying to live in one of the most desirable places to live on the planet.

Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
How far should people be expected to commute from these less diserable locations to their place of employment? Localities with an abundance of cheap housing tend to have significantly higher unemployment rates[1], [1] https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/employment-research/is-local-unemployment-related-to-local-housing-prices https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/employment-rese...
- pdimitar 8y ago
  Let's include pressure to work remotely in the whole equation. I see no reason why humanity must crowd trample each other in tiny metropolitan areas when there are so many affordable -- and likely more beautiful -- places to live in. Have basic infrastructure in place, internet excluded, and the problem is solved.
  - ajmurmann 8y ago
    The have been several studies that showed that cities foster innovation and living in larger cities leads to faster increase in income. It's also cheaper for society as a whole to provide good infrastructure in one place rather than spreading it out. Unfortunately we are currently hiding that cost and people living in cities are subsidizing the costs of roads and other infrastructure for people in low density areas.
    - pdimitar 8y ago
      I would seriously question those studies. You should probably add the increased stress and the lack of leisure time that make people mentally unhealthy. I am also seriously not okay with the implication that the cities support all other areas. That's extremely questionable. Lastly, don't forget there have been studies proving fat is bad and sugar is good. Never discount the vested interests that know how to convince people. Apparently you have been influenced by a study. Not saying you shouldn't believe anything, but maintain a healthy skepticism, please. I live in the only true big city in my country and truthfully, people are in general happier everywhere else in the country. At least they say so and sound like it.
      - Aeolun 8y ago
        I don’t think the fact that cities support the surrounding countryside has been very controversial since the 1500’s. It kind of makes sense. If 10% of the surface area needs 90% of the resources, they are going to be easier to provide than for the remaining 90% of the area (mainly because spreading things like doctors, hospitals and supermarkets around to serve a few hundred people is not easy).
        ajmurmann 8y ago
        Just utilities and roads alone are a massive cost that makes spread out living enormously costly and I pay as much for it living in a high rise building without owning a car as I do living somewhere in the suburbs or the country side with utilities and roads running very far to reach my lot. strongtowns.com is full of information on how we subsidize suburbs and rural living.
mistermann 8y ago
Cheap is a relative term. What does the affordability ratio (price vs local available incomes) look like compared to historical norms? Are these places cheap on that basis, or only when compared to the insane prices in desirable places?
ajmurmann 8y ago
It still seems less than ideal to have people live in places that require long commutes or result in lower income jobs (likely meaning they could be more productive elsewhere) so that someone can accumulate investment properties in the more desirable areas? To me this seems like someone complaining that prices of vegetables and meat going up due to speculation and someone pointing out that rice and bread are still cheap.
TulliusCicero 8y ago
Another way of putting this is: there's lots of cheap housing where there's only cheap jobs to match. It's a pick your poison situation, and it doesn't have to be. Singapore and Vienna are good examples of public housing programs, Tokyo is a good example of the market providing reasonable rent relative to how desirable/big/rich the area is.

chiph 8y ago

This guy invested $30k in getting a (very) run-down home into decent shape. He had a tenant within a week of putting it up for rent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q8pf-Ad0w0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q8pf-Ad0w0 Not sure how his actions are evil or rent-seeking in any way.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

CryptoPunk 8y ago

>>Housing is a basic necessity, using it as an investment allocates scarce finite resources to you when you don't need it while consuming limited supply thus reducing the available stock for those that do. Using it as an investment doesn't deprive others from using it. Using it as an investment means renting the property out to earn investment income on it. And investing leads to that scarce resource becoming less scarce, through construction and expansion of housing supply. Capital leads to abundance. Combating capital investments in housing leads to more housing scarcity. That's exactly what zoning restrictions and rent control do, and why some places have housing scarcity.

skybrian 8y ago

This doesn't make sense. Housing that's being rented out is in use by renters. No property is being wasted. Taking properties off the rental market will drive rents up. What do you have against renters? Vacant property is being wasted. Not too much of that, though. Morally speaking, a housing market has much in common with a traffic jam or a crowded bus. Everyone takes up space, though some more than others. If you're living somewhere that housing is scarce, you're a small part of the problem, according to the space you take up. The only way to not be part of the problem is to move away. It doesn't make sense to pick on some of the people in a crowd for making it crowded, assuming they're all taking a similar amount of space.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

jouster 7y ago

You are retarded. A huge number of people want to rent for one reason or another. A lot of people can only ever afford to rent because they choose to not save their money. Chastising people who work in the rental market is really, really dumb. Would you rather make it illegal to rent? Buy a house or be homeless? Or maybe you want all housing to be Soviet apartment blocks? Just shut up dude.