7 ms·

No, with out those buyers the market could not support the MASSIVE increase in prices many multiples of inflation in some markets, they "HAD" to start offering

by syshum 5y ago

No, with out those buyers the market could not support the MASSIVE increase in prices many multiples of inflation in some markets, they "HAD" to start offering alternatives or sellers would have to seek only reasonable profits on the sell instead of exorbitant profits... the horror

onion2k 5y ago
People treat their house as a retirement fund, or just an investment. They won't sell at a loss. If prices go down they just won't sell, which would also make it impossible for bank's to sell mortgages to people buying. Buyers can't buy if there are no sellers. People have to keep buying houses forever or the banking system will fail.
- syshum 5y ago
  >>They won't sell at a loss. If prices go down they just won't sell, This is absolutely false. Many people have sold at a lost over the years for many reason including job relocation, family issues, bankruptcy, etc et etc That said Pricing going down != loss, for example I bought my current home 5 years ago, I bought it below market value, and after 5 years of value increases prices would have to drop more than 20% for me to sell it for less than I paid for it, and much more to "take a loss" if you calculate profit / loss properly factoring the value of shelter provided (which no one does) >>People treat their house as a retirement fund, or just an investment. That is a problem society has yes...
- WalterBright 5y ago
  I sold my previous house at a substantial loss.
fleddr 5y ago
The moral preaching is out of place. When you own a home and are selling it, you go for the highest bidder. The idea that anybody at all would give a politically motivated discount is naive. The more important point is that in a supply-constrained situation, there isn't really going to be a "buy the dip" moment. Most home owners that are under water are under no pressure to sell, yet buyers are on the clock.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > The moral preaching is out of place. When you own a home and are selling it, you go for the highest bidder. You may not recognize it as such, but the idea that you always sell to the highest bidder is an expression of a very specific sort of "morality", one that excludes a more wholistic conception of what property ownership means for society as a whole, as well as the individuals who make it up. I understand that "the market sets the price" is a widely accepted dogma after 30-40 years of neoliberal messaging in every part of the US, UK and significant chunks of the rest of the world, but it's not actually natural law (to the extent that more or less nothign is natural law).
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    For someone selling what is likely by far the most expensive thing they own, they're pretty likely to take the highest price offer (or a near highest price iff that under-bidder is significantly more certain to close [waiving contingencies, etc.])
  - fleddr 5y ago
    I totally get what you're saying, but in particular I protest against moral hypocrisy. The very people complaining about being locked out of the housing market, being a victim of market conditions, would instantly forget about any and all morality as soon as they do secure a house. They'd absolutely not sell their house at a discount. When they preach "accessible housing", they mean accessible to them. When their houses appreciate in price just for the sake of owning it, I would know of nobody saying: I didn't deserve this, I'm going to wire this money to charity or back to the government. There is no morality in markets. Whilst as owner you may benefit, in times that you do not (economic crisis, expensive repairs, personal problems like divorce or disability)...absolutely nobody comes to your rescue. Morals and markets do not go together.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Sure, the hypocrisy is a problem. I remember in Seattle in the mid-90s just as the housing market there was starting to take off hearing a radio talk show where someone was complaining about Californians coming to WA and "ruining things" by bidding up housing costs. The host pointed out that it takes two to tango, and that the sellers were just as implicated in the process as the buyers. The caller got very flustered and then said "well, yeah, but it would be un-American to accept anything except the highest price". Sigh.

by syshum 5y ago

onion2k 5y ago

People treat their house as a retirement fund, or just an investment. They won't sell at a loss. If prices go down they just won't sell, which would also make it impossible for bank's to sell mortgages to people buying. Buyers can't buy if there are no sellers. People have to keep buying houses forever or the banking system will fail.

syshum 5y ago
>>They won't sell at a loss. If prices go down they just won't sell, This is absolutely false. Many people have sold at a lost over the years for many reason including job relocation, family issues, bankruptcy, etc et etc That said Pricing going down != loss, for example I bought my current home 5 years ago, I bought it below market value, and after 5 years of value increases prices would have to drop more than 20% for me to sell it for less than I paid for it, and much more to "take a loss" if you calculate profit / loss properly factoring the value of shelter provided (which no one does) >>People treat their house as a retirement fund, or just an investment. That is a problem society has yes...
WalterBright 5y ago
I sold my previous house at a substantial loss.

fleddr 5y ago

The moral preaching is out of place. When you own a home and are selling it, you go for the highest bidder. The idea that anybody at all would give a politically motivated discount is naive. The more important point is that in a supply-constrained situation, there isn't really going to be a "buy the dip" moment. Most home owners that are under water are under no pressure to sell, yet buyers are on the clock.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> The moral preaching is out of place. When you own a home and are selling it, you go for the highest bidder. You may not recognize it as such, but the idea that you always sell to the highest bidder is an expression of a very specific sort of "morality", one that excludes a more wholistic conception of what property ownership means for society as a whole, as well as the individuals who make it up. I understand that "the market sets the price" is a widely accepted dogma after 30-40 years of neoliberal messaging in every part of the US, UK and significant chunks of the rest of the world, but it's not actually natural law (to the extent that more or less nothign is natural law).
- sokoloff 5y ago
  For someone selling what is likely by far the most expensive thing they own, they're pretty likely to take the highest price offer (or a near highest price iff that under-bidder is significantly more certain to close [waiving contingencies, etc.])
- fleddr 5y ago
  I totally get what you're saying, but in particular I protest against moral hypocrisy. The very people complaining about being locked out of the housing market, being a victim of market conditions, would instantly forget about any and all morality as soon as they do secure a house. They'd absolutely not sell their house at a discount. When they preach "accessible housing", they mean accessible to them. When their houses appreciate in price just for the sake of owning it, I would know of nobody saying: I didn't deserve this, I'm going to wire this money to charity or back to the government. There is no morality in markets. Whilst as owner you may benefit, in times that you do not (economic crisis, expensive repairs, personal problems like divorce or disability)...absolutely nobody comes to your rescue. Morals and markets do not go together.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Sure, the hypocrisy is a problem. I remember in Seattle in the mid-90s just as the housing market there was starting to take off hearing a radio talk show where someone was complaining about Californians coming to WA and "ruining things" by bidding up housing costs. The host pointed out that it takes two to tango, and that the sellers were just as implicated in the process as the buyers. The caller got very flustered and then said "well, yeah, but it would be un-American to accept anything except the highest price". Sigh.