8 ms·

They're buying up all the affordable rental houses and increasing the rent, they're buying up the mobile home parks that are some of the "few remaining sources

• paskozdilar 5y ago
  Either that, or the world will converge into a dystopia where a ruling class owns everything and working class rents and lives day to day.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • helge9210 5y ago
    I think the proper term here would be feudalism.
    • solarmist 5y ago
      Yeah, return to.
    • gruez 5y ago
      > I think the proper term here would be feudalism. But that's not the proper term? >Feudalism, also known as the feudal system, was the combination of the legal, economic, military, and cultural customs that flourished in Medieval Europe between the 9th and 15th centuries. Unless you think removing affordable housing would bring back "the combination of the legal, economic, military, and cultural customs that flourished in Medieval Europe between the 9th and 15th centuries", the "proper term" isn't really "feudalism".
      • paskozdilar 5y ago
        What legal, economic, military and cultural customs would that be?
        • gruez 5y ago
          The quote above was taken from the wikipedia article on "Feudalism". That article also describes it more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism Taking a quick skim at that, and the associated "English feudalism" infobox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:English_feudalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:English_feudalism, makes me think that there's more to "Feudalism" than just "you pay rent to a landlord".
          • paskozdilar 5y ago
            Well, if you're going to scold someone for not using the correct term, it would be polite to explain why the term is not correct, without summoning several wikipedia links and just saying "see, it all writes here if you take the time to read it all".
            • gruez 5y ago
              I don't see the issue is with that, especially when the mistake being made is overgeneralizing a specific term. Suppose we were talking about jury trials, and someone said "I believe the correct term for it is common law". That's wrong, because even though many common law systems have jury trials, common law deals with a lot more than just jury trials. It's also very expansive, with a lot of topics to cover, so you can't reasonably give a summary as a comment. In this case I feel it's totally fine to scold them with a quick summary with why they're wrong (ie. "common law refers to a specific type of legal system used in certain countries, not just jury trials"), without having to write an exposition about every feature of common law.
              • paskozdilar 5y ago
                The issue I see is that feudalism, when it comes to land ownership, is very similar to the hypothesized scenario - in my opinion enough to warrant that tongue-in-cheek comment you replied to. You felt the need to point out that feudalism technically is not just that, without any explanation on what that difference is, or why is it meaningful to the discussion at hand. Yet you expect me to read random sources that you yourself didn't read, in order to somehow figure out your point. I'm sorry for being harsh, but you didn't contribute anything to the discussion, you were just being condescending. If you had been condescending, but brought something meaningful to the discussion, I wouldn't say a word to you. I promise.
  • throwntoday 5y ago
    You will own nothing and you will be happy
    • gruez 5y ago
      But in this case the residents already "own nothing"? The only difference here is that they're renting from a new owner, which decided to raise the rent.
      • twoxproblematic 5y ago
  • black_13 5y ago
• missedthecue 5y ago
  Sounds like there is not enough competition in the space. A result of government zoning law no doubt.
  • ctoth 5y ago
    Hoping my sarcasm detector is misfiring here, I still want to engage with this comment. Can you explain to me how zoning law does anything to change the reality that poor people are being outbid by large corporations when attempting to buy their homes? If the land were zoned for anything, how would this change the fundamental truth that a large corporation with access to capital can outbid poor people whose largest assets are the homes that are being taken away from them? If there were more competition in the mobile home market, okay cool, now the people trying to buy their land are fighting against even more corporations? Really hoping this was supposed to be a funny and I'm not getting it.
    • missedthecue 5y ago
      When the supply of houses is limited, but the number of bidders is increasing, the price can only do one thing; rapidly increase to meet the new equilibrium. I am not talking about more competition in the buyers side, I am talking about more competition in the building and selling side. If supply increases to match or outstrip the new demand, the prices of homes, mobile and otherwise, will fall. Clearly, selling homes is profitable because home prices are so high. So why are new homes not being built? The answer is because zoning laws in our current vetocracy explicitly prevent the construction of new housing under a variety of pretexts. We have been under-building for 10 years now and it's time to pay the piper.
      • joshcryer 5y ago
        Permits are the highest they've been in the past 5 years. This is almost certainly supply chain and labor effects and we will feel them for years to come. Here's a link to the Census Building Permits survey: https://www.census.gov/construction/bps/ https://www.census.gov/construction/bps/ You can read a brief info graphic here: https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf Note that "starts" of new buildings is close to permits, but completions are flat. There either isn't enough materials to finish these projects or there's a labor shortage to complete these projects. edit: not agreeing with your supply and demand argument tho there's lots of reasons people can't build in certain areas (where people want to live), but house prices are going up across the board, there really is an effort by the owner class to buy everything up and flip it to rental.
• imapeopleperson 5y ago
  > I'm honestly not sure how else this goes An entrepreneur will develop new mobile home parks and offer them for less. God bless capitalism
  • technofiend 5y ago
    That only works up to a point. You can't live 50 miles from work if there's no public transportation and you can't afford a reliable car.
    • shukantpal 5y ago
      37% of jobs in US can be remote. That’s easing a lot of that pressure. God bless capitalism.
      • paskozdilar 5y ago
        I believe that many jobs in the would could cease to exist, and the world would still function the same, if not better. An example that comes to mind are the "rent brokers" in my city - all they do is post rent ads to a local ebay-like website, answer the phones and write contracts (of questionable legal authority). Other than that, they are completely useless - they provide no useful information, and often lie just to get you to sign. And they take the first rent as payment. I still have no idea why so many people choose to work with them.
        • phil21 5y ago
          > I still have no idea why so many people choose to work with them. A good one is worth every penny of that month of rent. Having to advertise, and then deal with the current tenant+prospective tenant tours and scheduling is very much worth it just on it's own. Add in screening/background checks/credit checks and such and it's substantial. A good listing agent will also be up to speed on local laws and assist on that front as well letting you know of any recent changes. For me, it saves a bunch of time, and doesn't disrupt my dayjob. I still do most of my own maintenance and such, but the marketing and finding new tenants really is the worst part (other than a horrible tenant!) of the landlording experience. If I ever retire I'd likely do it myself to save the cash. As usual in such middle-men "industries" with no barrier of entry it attracts a lot of grifters and least-effort individuals so it's kind of a pain to find someone reliable.
• dzhiurgis 5y ago
  IMO all depends if they are buying with cash or with mortgage. Investment mortgages should only go towards new housing, not compete with existing. Arguable all housing investment should go into new housing, not competing.
  • chrisgd 5y ago
    They pay cash then package all rental income into a new security sold to institutional investors
    • dzhiurgis 5y ago
      Sounds like those properties are ripe for some squatters then
  • chii 5y ago
    > Arguable all housing investment should go into new housing, not competing why can't it go into new housing via a chain of financial transactions, rather than directly? In other words, it doesn't matter what the "new" money is invested in - as long as new construction rate is keeping up. So if it's not, then where's the problem? Why isn't that root cause being addressed, instead of trying to mandate how investors want to invest?
    • dzhiurgis 5y ago
      Because new housing is typically more expensive than old. And banks usually don't wanna finance you. So you are doubly out of luck and on top of that compete with property investors. Also that would incentivise investors to build up as that improves their profit margin if it's rentals.
• hotpotamus 5y ago
  "Not long ago, Kansas would have responded to the current situation by making the bastards pay. This would have been a political certainty, as predictable as what happens when you touch a match to a puddle of gasoline. When business screwed the farmers and the workers – when it implemented monopoly strategies invasive beyond the Populists' furthest imaginings – when it ripped off shareholders and casually tossed thousands out of work – you could be damned sure about what would follow. Not these days. Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower." — Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas? (2004), pp. 67–68