7 ms·

The people in charge have houses and want house prices to go up. That's the beginning, middle, and end of the thinking.

ta988 4y ago
To which you add, people that buy houses want to be able to sell making a large benefit. So you profit from using it (by living in it or renting it) and sell it for more than you did put into it...
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Do they plan to live in a tent after they 'used' the house and sold it? Because if they plan to buy a new house to replace the one they sold, they haven't made any money. And if they want to upgrade, they lost money and the price difference will have increased. The only case where you benefit from rising hoise prices is if all of your income comes from owning property, rather than working a job - i.e. you are a major landowner. If you are doing anything economically productive, from running a business to working a job, houae prices are a blood-sucking vampire squid.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    People that had money 3 or 4 decades ago tend to own a few houses and get some income from renting. Also, older people think more about downsizing than about upsizing their homes.
    - lupire 4y ago
      Do they also hate their children?
      - wonderwonder 4y ago
        Nope, I would bet a lot of these people had the means to gift their kids a nice down payment for their first home. That's why the best indicator of where you end up financially is where you start.
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        downpayment doesn't get you out of the hole -> you are still on the hook for decades, to keep sinking the majority of your earnings into that house. That's money lost to productive economy, and money lost to you.
      - jjoonathan 4y ago
        They want their children to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven. Not the wisest deal ever struck.
        antisthenes 4y ago
        Well, if we're doing pseudo-philosophical soundbites, then hell is other people. Better to rule than be ruled. At the very least it gives you a bigger safety net when you fall out of power.
        imtringued 4y ago
        That is how you get in the mess in the first place. You are scared of being ruled by other people who are scared of being ruled by you. A true acracy, i.e. a classless society, is never even considered.
  - vkou 4y ago
    They can either downsize towards the end of their life, move to a less desirable housing market (because there are no jobs in it), or take a loan against their home.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Normally people optimise for their life, not for their eventual few years of retirement and death.
pirate787 4y ago
The Realtor and homebuilder lobbies are part of the thinking, too.
josefresco 4y ago
I live in a popular vacation destination. The locals didn't panic when wealthy multiple-home owners started buying up houses because ... their property values were increasing! Now local business can't find workers, towns can't find employees all because housing is out of reach for the working and lower-middle class. Like boiling a frog, most people won't care until it's too late.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  > towns can't find employees all because housing is out of reach for the working and lower-middle class. Why not simply increase the supply?
  - josefresco 4y ago
    It's a geographically limited space which limits sprawl and there's a lot of density laws and zoning that limit height. Lastly, NIMBYs block and delay affordable housing developments for a variety of reasons: "traffic" "change the character of the neighborhood" etc. Just getting "accessory dwelling" allowances was a battle for each town in the region.
  - Jasper_ 4y ago
    The supply was fine before multi-home owners and property management companies took up most of it and jacked up the prices. Increasing the supply would only increase the wealth of the homeowners, it won't lower prices. Increasing the supply means building new buildings, and that often means building huge lots of five-over-ones, priced as luxury apartments in a growing market. The people building the new supply expect to make a profit, and in a market with growing prices, they aren't selling for less than what they think they can get out of it. We see this in big cities where vacancies are at an all-time high (aka a lot more supply), but prices aren't going down.
    - tayne 4y ago
      I do real estate for a living and this opinion is like a zombie that never dies no matter how many times it is proven wrong. You are putting forward that landlords acted collectively to increase the price of realestate. This is obviously wrong. The price of homes is determined by the market. It doesn’t matter who owns those homes, they are worth what the market says they are. Landlords do not control the market and even if they banded together in a conspiracy to increase the price of homes, they couldn’t because the vast majority of homes are owned by regular people. The high price of housing is caused by a shortage. If you don’t believe me then watch the 60 minutes segment about it. There’s no conspiracy. If there weren’t landlords building new stock it would be even worse. It’s so ironic that the hive mind spits in the face of the only people building new housing; the only people making the problem better.
CincinnatiMan 4y ago
I don't think it's that simple. Maybe if someone has lots and lots of investment homes, they may think that way, but someone owning a single home shouldn't be excited about its price inflating--it's not like you can sell it and reap the profits, because you'll just be buying another similarly inflated house.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  You can do a cash out refi and invest into other higher yielding cashflowing assets. People do this all the time for e.g. renovations, additions etc
  - CincinnatiMan 4y ago
    You eventually have to pay that back though, right? So the benefit is fleeting.
    - adam_arthur 4y ago
      If you cash out refi at 3%, and invest into 6% yielding asset, then you are permanently making 3% extra return on that money. (of course there's risk etc)

To which you add, people that buy houses want to be able to sell making a large benefit. So you profit from using it (by living in it or renting it) and sell it for more than you did put into it...

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
Do they plan to live in a tent after they 'used' the house and sold it? Because if they plan to buy a new house to replace the one they sold, they haven't made any money. And if they want to upgrade, they lost money and the price difference will have increased. The only case where you benefit from rising hoise prices is if all of your income comes from owning property, rather than working a job - i.e. you are a major landowner. If you are doing anything economically productive, from running a business to working a job, houae prices are a blood-sucking vampire squid.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  People that had money 3 or 4 decades ago tend to own a few houses and get some income from renting. Also, older people think more about downsizing than about upsizing their homes.
  - lupire 4y ago
    Do they also hate their children?
    - wonderwonder 4y ago
      Nope, I would bet a lot of these people had the means to gift their kids a nice down payment for their first home. That's why the best indicator of where you end up financially is where you start.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        downpayment doesn't get you out of the hole -> you are still on the hook for decades, to keep sinking the majority of your earnings into that house. That's money lost to productive economy, and money lost to you.
    - jjoonathan 4y ago
      They want their children to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven. Not the wisest deal ever struck.
      - antisthenes 4y ago
        Well, if we're doing pseudo-philosophical soundbites, then hell is other people. Better to rule than be ruled. At the very least it gives you a bigger safety net when you fall out of power.
        imtringued 4y ago
        That is how you get in the mess in the first place. You are scared of being ruled by other people who are scared of being ruled by you. A true acracy, i.e. a classless society, is never even considered.
- vkou 4y ago
  They can either downsize towards the end of their life, move to a less desirable housing market (because there are no jobs in it), or take a loan against their home.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Normally people optimise for their life, not for their eventual few years of retirement and death.

pirate787 4y ago

The Realtor and homebuilder lobbies are part of the thinking, too.

josefresco 4y ago

I live in a popular vacation destination. The locals didn't panic when wealthy multiple-home owners started buying up houses because ... their property values were increasing! Now local business can't find workers, towns can't find employees all because housing is out of reach for the working and lower-middle class. Like boiling a frog, most people won't care until it's too late.

908B64B197 4y ago
> towns can't find employees all because housing is out of reach for the working and lower-middle class. Why not simply increase the supply?
- josefresco 4y ago
  It's a geographically limited space which limits sprawl and there's a lot of density laws and zoning that limit height. Lastly, NIMBYs block and delay affordable housing developments for a variety of reasons: "traffic" "change the character of the neighborhood" etc. Just getting "accessory dwelling" allowances was a battle for each town in the region.
- Jasper_ 4y ago
  The supply was fine before multi-home owners and property management companies took up most of it and jacked up the prices. Increasing the supply would only increase the wealth of the homeowners, it won't lower prices. Increasing the supply means building new buildings, and that often means building huge lots of five-over-ones, priced as luxury apartments in a growing market. The people building the new supply expect to make a profit, and in a market with growing prices, they aren't selling for less than what they think they can get out of it. We see this in big cities where vacancies are at an all-time high (aka a lot more supply), but prices aren't going down.
  - tayne 4y ago
    I do real estate for a living and this opinion is like a zombie that never dies no matter how many times it is proven wrong. You are putting forward that landlords acted collectively to increase the price of realestate. This is obviously wrong. The price of homes is determined by the market. It doesn’t matter who owns those homes, they are worth what the market says they are. Landlords do not control the market and even if they banded together in a conspiracy to increase the price of homes, they couldn’t because the vast majority of homes are owned by regular people. The high price of housing is caused by a shortage. If you don’t believe me then watch the 60 minutes segment about it. There’s no conspiracy. If there weren’t landlords building new stock it would be even worse. It’s so ironic that the hive mind spits in the face of the only people building new housing; the only people making the problem better.

CincinnatiMan 4y ago

I don't think it's that simple. Maybe if someone has lots and lots of investment homes, they may think that way, but someone owning a single home shouldn't be excited about its price inflating--it's not like you can sell it and reap the profits, because you'll just be buying another similarly inflated house.

adam_arthur 4y ago
You can do a cash out refi and invest into other higher yielding cashflowing assets. People do this all the time for e.g. renovations, additions etc
- CincinnatiMan 4y ago
  You eventually have to pay that back though, right? So the benefit is fleeting.
  - adam_arthur 4y ago
    If you cash out refi at 3%, and invest into 6% yielding asset, then you are permanently making 3% extra return on that money. (of course there's risk etc)