5 ms·

> So, paying more than other buyers is in a way stealing? Do you hear yourself? When it comes to housing, and your intention is to use it as an investment vehi

> So, paying more than other buyers is in a way stealing? Do you hear yourself? When it comes to housing, and your intention is to use it as an investment vehicle, yes, absolutely. I have no problem with individual buyers who are intending to use the property as their primary housing competing on price. I do have a problem with institutional or investor buyers competing against those would-be-homeowners on price. Homes aren't just any other assets, they're not just some good. They're a thing you and your family need to survive. They _must_ be treated different. And if that means considering institutional or investment purchases in homes be considered stealing, so be it. There must be controls on such properties to ensure a more equitable (read: regardless of wealth) distribution of this specific asset type. > You are opposed to the very idea of price signals? For housing? Yes, 100% against it. Housing availability and access should _never_ depend on an individuals wealth.

unmole 5y ago
> When it comes to housing, and your intention is to use it as an investment vehicle, yes, absolutely. Literally everyone who buys a house expects it to appreciate in value. This is the reason for NIMBYism, regulatory capture and market failure. If you actually want make housing more affordable, the solution is get rid of regulations that make it impossible to build new houses. > Homes aren't just any other assets, they're not just some good. They're a thing you and your family need to survive. You mean like food, fuel and clothing? Housing is a basic necessity, ownership of a single family house is not.
- genocidicbunny 5y ago
  Well well, looks like we do agree on some things. > Literally everyone who buys a house expects it to appreciate in value. This is the reason for NIMBYism, regulatory capture and market failure. And that's a problem. In many countries housing is not seen as an appreciative asset. For example, much of my extended family lives in housing that is decidedly depreciative over time. The cities they live in tend to build sufficient housing to keep up with the demand such that the prices don't rise much. Housing here seems to be treated as primarily an investment vehicle, and secondly a place to live. I think those priorities are inverted in the US. > If you actually want make housing more affordable, the solution is get rid of regulations that make it impossible to build new houses. Gods yes, so much yes. I agree with you here. The most expedient way to affordable housing is to boost the supply. Any actions that boost housing availability will fall short of simply building more housing. With that said, I think its a problem that the only viable house-building these days in the US is either large developer-built suburbs or the now-common 5+1 apartment buildings. These are fundamentally investment vehicles (why would a business building homes just to lose money on them after all?) > You mean like food, fuel and clothing? > Housing is a basic necessity, ownership of a single family house is not. And I think that food, fuel, clothing and medicine should be treated similarly -- that is, provided equally regardless of wealth. But I do agree that ownership of a single family house is not a basic necessity. The trouble is that these days, there's no price differentiation on owning vs. renting. In a lot of places, rents are higher than mortgages on the same property. And even when you factor in the costs of ownership (maintenance, property taxes, etc) it usually still ends up being more beneficial to own than rent because after spending all that money, you end up _owning_ the property. The biggest differentiator tends to whether or not you rent vs buy seems to be the ability to scrounge up the dosh for the downpayment. That is, when you have a mortgage on a home, yes, you may be paying a similar amount per month, but there's some value returned to you -- the ownership of the property. Renters commonly pay similar amounts without the benefit of ever owning anything. The economics work out that, compared to a homeowner that spends a similar amount of money, a renter will get pretty shafted on average.
  - unmole 5y ago
    The only rational way of dealing with high demand is increasing the supply. Everything else is a distraction. Especially if it involves scapegoating convenient villains. In the developed world, provision of basic goods and services is a solved problem thanks to free markets. Where there is still an issue of access, it is addressed through targeted subsidies. Not through piecemeal, knee jerk restrictions nor by redefining what ownership or stealing means. > And that's a problem. In many countries housing is not seen as an appreciative asset. Where? Even if the house doesn't appreciate in value, the land it sits on does. The only places where land doesn't appreciate in value are those experiencing depopulation.
    - genocidicbunny 5y ago
      > In the developed world, provision of basic goods and services is a solved problem thanks to free markets. My homeless friends would really love for you to tell them this to their faces. In fact, they would love it so much, they would absolutely be willing to give you the gift of additional orifices in your abdomen. > Where? Even if the house doesn't appreciate in value, the land it sits on does. Everywhere that believes housing is an actual human need rather than an investment vehicle.
      - unmole 5y ago
        > My homeless friends would really love for you to tell them this to their faces. Homeless make up ~0.17% of the US population. Of these, the majority live in some form of shelter transitional housing. Tell me again how a system that manages to provide shelter to 99.9% of the population isn't working. > Everywhere that believes housing is an actual human need rather than an investment vehicle. Do the have have actual names or are they simply a concept?
        genocidicbunny 5y ago
        Your math doesn't add up. If .17% are homeless, then its 99.83% that it's 'working for.' But the part you missed is that anything less than 100% is unacceptable. If the system is working, it must work for 100.0% of the population, not 99.83%. Nothing less is acceptable for a 'working system'. Anything else is 'work in progress' Also, I would like to point out that .17% of 330 is 56000 people. Are you saying that 56000 people don't matter?

unmole 5y ago

> When it comes to housing, and your intention is to use it as an investment vehicle, yes, absolutely. Literally everyone who buys a house expects it to appreciate in value. This is the reason for NIMBYism, regulatory capture and market failure. If you actually want make housing more affordable, the solution is get rid of regulations that make it impossible to build new houses. > Homes aren't just any other assets, they're not just some good. They're a thing you and your family need to survive. You mean like food, fuel and clothing? Housing is a basic necessity, ownership of a single family house is not.

genocidicbunny 5y ago
Well well, looks like we do agree on some things. > Literally everyone who buys a house expects it to appreciate in value. This is the reason for NIMBYism, regulatory capture and market failure. And that's a problem. In many countries housing is not seen as an appreciative asset. For example, much of my extended family lives in housing that is decidedly depreciative over time. The cities they live in tend to build sufficient housing to keep up with the demand such that the prices don't rise much. Housing here seems to be treated as primarily an investment vehicle, and secondly a place to live. I think those priorities are inverted in the US. > If you actually want make housing more affordable, the solution is get rid of regulations that make it impossible to build new houses. Gods yes, so much yes. I agree with you here. The most expedient way to affordable housing is to boost the supply. Any actions that boost housing availability will fall short of simply building more housing. With that said, I think its a problem that the only viable house-building these days in the US is either large developer-built suburbs or the now-common 5+1 apartment buildings. These are fundamentally investment vehicles (why would a business building homes just to lose money on them after all?) > You mean like food, fuel and clothing? > Housing is a basic necessity, ownership of a single family house is not. And I think that food, fuel, clothing and medicine should be treated similarly -- that is, provided equally regardless of wealth. But I do agree that ownership of a single family house is not a basic necessity. The trouble is that these days, there's no price differentiation on owning vs. renting. In a lot of places, rents are higher than mortgages on the same property. And even when you factor in the costs of ownership (maintenance, property taxes, etc) it usually still ends up being more beneficial to own than rent because after spending all that money, you end up _owning_ the property. The biggest differentiator tends to whether or not you rent vs buy seems to be the ability to scrounge up the dosh for the downpayment. That is, when you have a mortgage on a home, yes, you may be paying a similar amount per month, but there's some value returned to you -- the ownership of the property. Renters commonly pay similar amounts without the benefit of ever owning anything. The economics work out that, compared to a homeowner that spends a similar amount of money, a renter will get pretty shafted on average.
- unmole 5y ago
  The only rational way of dealing with high demand is increasing the supply. Everything else is a distraction. Especially if it involves scapegoating convenient villains. In the developed world, provision of basic goods and services is a solved problem thanks to free markets. Where there is still an issue of access, it is addressed through targeted subsidies. Not through piecemeal, knee jerk restrictions nor by redefining what ownership or stealing means. > And that's a problem. In many countries housing is not seen as an appreciative asset. Where? Even if the house doesn't appreciate in value, the land it sits on does. The only places where land doesn't appreciate in value are those experiencing depopulation.
  - genocidicbunny 5y ago
    > In the developed world, provision of basic goods and services is a solved problem thanks to free markets. My homeless friends would really love for you to tell them this to their faces. In fact, they would love it so much, they would absolutely be willing to give you the gift of additional orifices in your abdomen. > Where? Even if the house doesn't appreciate in value, the land it sits on does. Everywhere that believes housing is an actual human need rather than an investment vehicle.
    - unmole 5y ago
      > My homeless friends would really love for you to tell them this to their faces. Homeless make up ~0.17% of the US population. Of these, the majority live in some form of shelter transitional housing. Tell me again how a system that manages to provide shelter to 99.9% of the population isn't working. > Everywhere that believes housing is an actual human need rather than an investment vehicle. Do the have have actual names or are they simply a concept?
      - genocidicbunny 5y ago
        Your math doesn't add up. If .17% are homeless, then its 99.83% that it's 'working for.' But the part you missed is that anything less than 100% is unacceptable. If the system is working, it must work for 100.0% of the population, not 99.83%. Nothing less is acceptable for a 'working system'. Anything else is 'work in progress' Also, I would like to point out that .17% of 330 is 56000 people. Are you saying that 56000 people don't matter?