6 ms·

The real solution is to decommodify housing. >The landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for the natural pr

The real solution is to decommodify housing. >The landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for the natural produce of the earth. -Adam Smith

wanderer2323 7y ago
>decommodify housing genuinely curious what would that entail, in practical steps
- freehunter 7y ago
  My guess is to implement a higher tax on properties where the owner does not live on the property, or put a limit on how many rental units a landlord can own. Something like that could dis-incentivize large tracts of rental properties.
  - nerfhammer 7y ago
    How does that create an abundance of housing?
- claudeganon 7y ago
  Look into the history and development of Vienna’s social housing system as a start. 62% of people live in housing under this scheme: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b4e0b12e4b0b15aba88c7b0 https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b4e0b12e4b0b15aba88c7b0
- mythrwy 7y ago
  Increased land or property taxes (while eliminating income taxes) might help. Make it undesirable to sit on large amounts or expensive property, reduce the propensity to resell for gain and put a stop the home ownership casino which in some ways looks like bitcoin speculation over the past two decades. Give credit for primary residence (and or legit Ag or industrial use, but maybe collecting land taxes from industry is preferable to capital gains even.). After these deductions tax like crazy for the privilege of squatting on what I think truly is, by nature, communal social property (land). That should dampen down the speculation and return prices to earth while encouraging primary single residence ownership. Oh, and stop inflating financial bubbles that distort the price of a basic human need. For starters.
graeme 7y ago
This may not change the argument, but he was referring to the landed gentry who owned farmland rather than people who build and maintain buildings.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  It doesn’t. The landlord captures increases in value from things like better public infrastructure or outside economic development in the same fashion. Tech workers in San Francisco, for example, have created massive amounts of wealth and value in the city, much of which has then been sucked up by landlords and developers who provide nothing even remotely comparable. They just profit from owning something other people do work in and build on top of.
  - graeme 7y ago
    I think it does change it somewhat though. For example Tokyo has seen a growth in population but no increase in rent. The zoning there allows construction whereas bay area zoning does not. If car production was outlawed existing car owners would get a windfall. But that's not due to some intrinsic feature of being a car owner. Land is definitely more limited than cars. But it seems to me that land scarcity explains only a portion of the increase in prices in San Francisco. This article has more on tokyo housing starts relative to sf and nyc: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-home-prices-stay-flat-11554210002 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/what-h... The difference from ag land is that the builders in tokyo are doing real activity to provide the housing. Lots of businesses benefit from externalities, not just landlords.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > They just profit from owning something other people do work and build on top of. The same way people who own shares in a company that pays dividends profit from work other people do. Those landlords either built the apartment buildings themselves, or spent the capital investment to buy the building from a previous owner. (to your comment below, HN isn't letting me respond) So in the end, this isn't about the business model of landlords this is about fundamentally different views on the legitimacy of private property. That's a topic much broader than rent and real estate.
xvedejas 7y ago
Should it not be the other way around, turn housing into more of a commodity? We have no shortage of most commodities, for example foods, because typically the higher the demand for the commodities, the more is made. Those markets benefit from things like economy of scale. Housing seems to be the opposite right now, there's very high demand and yet development is not able to keep pace due to artificial restrictions like zoning and height limits.
- zanny 7y ago
  Housing is limited by sustainability in ways most commodities are externalized. Here are all the reasons you can't buy a commoditized "cheaply made" house in Nowhere Minnesota: A. There is finite land in the world. Burying it in sprawl housing is an American tradition that has wrought disastrous environmental, health, time consuming, wasteful, and systemic consequences across the nation. B. Housing does not exist in a vacuum, not in a way close to what true commodities - things you buy off a shelf for a purpose but otherwise are non-interactive - operate. Housing requires infrastructure in myriad forms from electrical to transit. These structural requirements are systematized and cannot be commoditized meaningfully and thus housing itself is limited by them. C. Housing is limited by your means to sustain it. This means you need a job, and work is going in the opposite direction of commoditization because any repetitious work is being automated. The availability of meaningful employment is shrinking and thus the viable domains of legitimate housing likewise shrink, which is why the flood to California is a thing, why there is so much demand for density, and why a half century of gentrified urban planning has ruined the states housing market. D. Housing is already commoditized. You can buy a manufactured house made at scale for an inflation adjusted cost half of what manually built houses were costing a century ago with more square footage, modern amenities, and the ability to have it installed on a lot over a weekend. If you price out the physical goods cost of manufacturing some of the highest density vertical condo buildings in the world the per-square footage of livable space costs are often below stick built houses. The limiting factor is land - so back to A through C, thats the limiter. The construction of buildings should be done in a free market that invites competition of builders but with the regulation to recognize those purchasing said structures are rarely educated on quality or safe construction. The distribution of land needs to be radically rethought because the established paradigm of treating it like a segregated consumer good is bankrupting the working class as the aristocracy pours money into property as their Scrooge McDuck money pit of choice.
taffer 7y ago
The quote refers to the land itself, not to the structures built on it. In other words, it is an argument for a land tax, not for the confiscation of buildings.
dgzl 7y ago
I don't understand how that's possible. Housing is a good/service, how can that be decommodified?
- claudeganon 7y ago
  Social housing exists in many forms across the developed world. As I commented up-thread, look into its history in places like Vienna.
  - closeparen 7y ago
    Social housing just manifests the imbalance in waiting lists instead of prices. It's not like people who get stuck in the queue are having a better time than people who can't afford the market rate. Building more housing in desirable places to accomodate shifting demand and growing population is just as important under social housing, but even less likely, since the demand is totally disconnected from the incentives and capital required to do it.
    - morningseagulls 7y ago
      >Social housing just manifests the imbalance in waiting lists instead of prices. It's not like people who get stuck in the queue are having a better time than people who can't afford the market rate. This is under the assumption that demand often outstrips supply. That's actually less likely to be true with an effective social housing policy in place. >Building more housing in desirable places to accomodate shifting demand and growing population is just as important under social housing, but even less likely, since the demand is totally disconnected from the incentives and capital required to do it. Lol. And you think a "free" market will improve the connection between demand and the incentives required to do it? Far from it. With a social housing policy, at least more housing will be built, because it's part of the plan. Here's another place where a social housing policy has worked very well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore Structurally, Singapore has a Georgist tax policy (it's effectively a tax haven where the majority of the population pay no income tax) that funds a very active building program. So no, the demand is actually more connected to the incentives and capital required to do it than under a so-called "free" market.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

The real solution is to decommodify housing. >The landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for the natural produce of the earth. -Adam Smith

wanderer2323 7y ago

>decommodify housing genuinely curious what would that entail, in practical steps

freehunter 7y ago
My guess is to implement a higher tax on properties where the owner does not live on the property, or put a limit on how many rental units a landlord can own. Something like that could dis-incentivize large tracts of rental properties.
- nerfhammer 7y ago
  How does that create an abundance of housing?
claudeganon 7y ago
Look into the history and development of Vienna’s social housing system as a start. 62% of people live in housing under this scheme: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b4e0b12e4b0b15aba88c7b0 https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b4e0b12e4b0b15aba88c7b0
mythrwy 7y ago
Increased land or property taxes (while eliminating income taxes) might help. Make it undesirable to sit on large amounts or expensive property, reduce the propensity to resell for gain and put a stop the home ownership casino which in some ways looks like bitcoin speculation over the past two decades. Give credit for primary residence (and or legit Ag or industrial use, but maybe collecting land taxes from industry is preferable to capital gains even.). After these deductions tax like crazy for the privilege of squatting on what I think truly is, by nature, communal social property (land). That should dampen down the speculation and return prices to earth while encouraging primary single residence ownership. Oh, and stop inflating financial bubbles that distort the price of a basic human need. For starters.

graeme 7y ago

This may not change the argument, but he was referring to the landed gentry who owned farmland rather than people who build and maintain buildings.

claudeganon 7y ago
It doesn’t. The landlord captures increases in value from things like better public infrastructure or outside economic development in the same fashion. Tech workers in San Francisco, for example, have created massive amounts of wealth and value in the city, much of which has then been sucked up by landlords and developers who provide nothing even remotely comparable. They just profit from owning something other people do work in and build on top of.
- graeme 7y ago
  I think it does change it somewhat though. For example Tokyo has seen a growth in population but no increase in rent. The zoning there allows construction whereas bay area zoning does not. If car production was outlawed existing car owners would get a windfall. But that's not due to some intrinsic feature of being a car owner. Land is definitely more limited than cars. But it seems to me that land scarcity explains only a portion of the increase in prices in San Francisco. This article has more on tokyo housing starts relative to sf and nyc: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-home-prices-stay-flat-11554210002 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/what-h... The difference from ag land is that the builders in tokyo are doing real activity to provide the housing. Lots of businesses benefit from externalities, not just landlords.
- manfredo 7y ago
  > They just profit from owning something other people do work and build on top of. The same way people who own shares in a company that pays dividends profit from work other people do. Those landlords either built the apartment buildings themselves, or spent the capital investment to buy the building from a previous owner. (to your comment below, HN isn't letting me respond) So in the end, this isn't about the business model of landlords this is about fundamentally different views on the legitimacy of private property. That's a topic much broader than rent and real estate.

xvedejas 7y ago

Should it not be the other way around, turn housing into more of a commodity? We have no shortage of most commodities, for example foods, because typically the higher the demand for the commodities, the more is made. Those markets benefit from things like economy of scale. Housing seems to be the opposite right now, there's very high demand and yet development is not able to keep pace due to artificial restrictions like zoning and height limits.

zanny 7y ago
Housing is limited by sustainability in ways most commodities are externalized. Here are all the reasons you can't buy a commoditized "cheaply made" house in Nowhere Minnesota: A. There is finite land in the world. Burying it in sprawl housing is an American tradition that has wrought disastrous environmental, health, time consuming, wasteful, and systemic consequences across the nation. B. Housing does not exist in a vacuum, not in a way close to what true commodities - things you buy off a shelf for a purpose but otherwise are non-interactive - operate. Housing requires infrastructure in myriad forms from electrical to transit. These structural requirements are systematized and cannot be commoditized meaningfully and thus housing itself is limited by them. C. Housing is limited by your means to sustain it. This means you need a job, and work is going in the opposite direction of commoditization because any repetitious work is being automated. The availability of meaningful employment is shrinking and thus the viable domains of legitimate housing likewise shrink, which is why the flood to California is a thing, why there is so much demand for density, and why a half century of gentrified urban planning has ruined the states housing market. D. Housing is already commoditized. You can buy a manufactured house made at scale for an inflation adjusted cost half of what manually built houses were costing a century ago with more square footage, modern amenities, and the ability to have it installed on a lot over a weekend. If you price out the physical goods cost of manufacturing some of the highest density vertical condo buildings in the world the per-square footage of livable space costs are often below stick built houses. The limiting factor is land - so back to A through C, thats the limiter. The construction of buildings should be done in a free market that invites competition of builders but with the regulation to recognize those purchasing said structures are rarely educated on quality or safe construction. The distribution of land needs to be radically rethought because the established paradigm of treating it like a segregated consumer good is bankrupting the working class as the aristocracy pours money into property as their Scrooge McDuck money pit of choice.

taffer 7y ago

The quote refers to the land itself, not to the structures built on it. In other words, it is an argument for a land tax, not for the confiscation of buildings.

dgzl 7y ago

I don't understand how that's possible. Housing is a good/service, how can that be decommodified?

claudeganon 7y ago
Social housing exists in many forms across the developed world. As I commented up-thread, look into its history in places like Vienna.
- closeparen 7y ago
  Social housing just manifests the imbalance in waiting lists instead of prices. It's not like people who get stuck in the queue are having a better time than people who can't afford the market rate. Building more housing in desirable places to accomodate shifting demand and growing population is just as important under social housing, but even less likely, since the demand is totally disconnected from the incentives and capital required to do it.
  - morningseagulls 7y ago
    >Social housing just manifests the imbalance in waiting lists instead of prices. It's not like people who get stuck in the queue are having a better time than people who can't afford the market rate. This is under the assumption that demand often outstrips supply. That's actually less likely to be true with an effective social housing policy in place. >Building more housing in desirable places to accomodate shifting demand and growing population is just as important under social housing, but even less likely, since the demand is totally disconnected from the incentives and capital required to do it. Lol. And you think a "free" market will improve the connection between demand and the incentives required to do it? Far from it. With a social housing policy, at least more housing will be built, because it's part of the plan. Here's another place where a social housing policy has worked very well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore Structurally, Singapore has a Georgist tax policy (it's effectively a tax haven where the majority of the population pay no income tax) that funds a very active building program. So no, the demand is actually more connected to the incentives and capital required to do it than under a so-called "free" market.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]