6 ms·

Here's another more bleak option. Just like in 2008 when corporations bought up huge swaths of the housing market for cash while no one could get a loan. (whic

Here's another more bleak option. Just like in 2008 when corporations bought up huge swaths of the housing market for cash while no one could get a loan. (which is part of the current issue with not enough homes to buy) They aren't betting the market will come roaring back, they are betting that they can corner the market and housing will be a subscription just like everything else they sell. Rent seekers aren't going anywhere, and the cost is really immaterial to them for the most part. They don't need cashflow, they need a monopoly.

lazide 4y ago
That assumes they'll get takers on the areas though. With remote work becoming more of the norm, what if the labor market doesn't move back? They'll have a monopoly that few ever pay rent on, and they'll go broke (while the houses rot).
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Urban areas are desirable even outside of the availability of high paying jobs. There are neighborhoods in America's desirable cities filled with the adult children of wealthy people who pay their kids' insane rents while they pursue arts, fun and wait tables or bartend on the side for petty cash or to keep busy. That section of urban residents are not dependent on high paying jobs and will continue to seek out cities for the lifestyle aspect.
- jethro_tell 4y ago
  Sure, It's not a sure thing forever and not all areas are going to be winners, but if you have a big enough budget, you can just buy houses everywhere for a long time and probably make decent rent for a while. Heh, if not, or when it ends, they can just dump it and or the company and walk away. It's not like they are doing it with their own money.
marvin 4y ago
This is a spooky narrative, but the rent seekers can't be the majority. My understanding is that many Californian real estate markets are kept artificially tight due to various forms of NIMBYism. If renters become the majority, it's suddenly no longer viable to limit new housing through regulation. Markets are nowhere near the fundamental limits of homes per square meter of the state that's good to live in.
- jethro_tell 4y ago
  I don't think they are a majority and I think the main problem is lack of housing being built. But I do think that what housing is out there on the market faces stiff competition from companies not people. I'd assume there are a few people buying houses with cash but my guess is a lot of those stories you hear about people bidding 100k over ask and losing to a cash offer are mostly not people. Theres a good number of companies that are open about increasing their housing portfolios. Even construction companies that built thousands of starter homes per year converting to rentals only. These are long term changes, and not a quick cash grab at the bottom of the market.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Schnitz 4y ago
  Homeowners are a reliable political cohort, they tend to organize quickly as soon as any issues are on the agenda that might affect the value of their land and they will reliably push for whatever increases land values. They show up at city hall to make sure they are at least the loudest group on the issue. Homeowners are also diligent voters. You’ll need more than 50% of people to be renters to counter this, unless you can convince renters to organize as reliably and passionately as home owners.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > Homeowners are a reliable political cohort, they tend to organize quickly as soon as any issues are on the agenda that might affect the value of their land and they will reliably push for whatever increases land values. I feel like this is a myth, do you have research to back this? As a 20+ year home owner, I've never been asked to support anything to increase land/housing value (not that I'd want to, since that means higher taxes for me, which I'd rather not). I don't think this homeowner cabal to increase values actually exists. If it does, nobody invited me and nobody invited any of my homeowner friends (which is all my friends) either, so it can't be a very large group.
    - 4y ago
fennecfoxen 4y ago
As usual, the “speculators” and “out of towners” and others are convenient scapegoats, lest we have to face the underlying supply and demand and barriers to development. You want to have a monopoly on housing in a major city? I’d be hard pressed to point out an industry where that would be harder. You have literally millions of competitors.
- urthor 4y ago
  Absolutely this. The out of towners, who are mostly Blackrock, is just a fella with a spreadsheet tracking new dwelling approvals vs demand. All the Bay Area has to do is approve new dwellings. The issue is the politicians are landlords with investment properties.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  San Francisco is already the second most densely populated city in the USA (the first being NYC). SF is actually already slightly more densely populated than Tokyo, which many like to tout as a mecha for de-regulated zoning.
  - dublinben 4y ago
    >San Francisco is already the second most densely populated city in the USA This isn't true, even if you limit it to cities with population over 100k. New York City, Jersey City, and Paterson, NJ are all more dense than SF.[0] San Francisco is effectively tied with notoriously anti-development Cambridge, MA. Quite a few smaller cities around the country are more dense as well.[1] The housing situation in San Francisco is nothing to be proud of, unless you think that having the highest median home prices or median rents is a laudable achievement. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
  - synaesthesisx 4y ago
    But the difference is, NYC is constantly building new housing inventory, with constant construction and developments going up left and right. Meanwhile most of San Francisco is just streets of old single-family homes.

lazide 4y ago

That assumes they'll get takers on the areas though. With remote work becoming more of the norm, what if the labor market doesn't move back? They'll have a monopoly that few ever pay rent on, and they'll go broke (while the houses rot).

heavyset_go 4y ago
Urban areas are desirable even outside of the availability of high paying jobs. There are neighborhoods in America's desirable cities filled with the adult children of wealthy people who pay their kids' insane rents while they pursue arts, fun and wait tables or bartend on the side for petty cash or to keep busy. That section of urban residents are not dependent on high paying jobs and will continue to seek out cities for the lifestyle aspect.
jethro_tell 4y ago
Sure, It's not a sure thing forever and not all areas are going to be winners, but if you have a big enough budget, you can just buy houses everywhere for a long time and probably make decent rent for a while. Heh, if not, or when it ends, they can just dump it and or the company and walk away. It's not like they are doing it with their own money.

marvin 4y ago

This is a spooky narrative, but the rent seekers can't be the majority. My understanding is that many Californian real estate markets are kept artificially tight due to various forms of NIMBYism. If renters become the majority, it's suddenly no longer viable to limit new housing through regulation. Markets are nowhere near the fundamental limits of homes per square meter of the state that's good to live in.

jethro_tell 4y ago
I don't think they are a majority and I think the main problem is lack of housing being built. But I do think that what housing is out there on the market faces stiff competition from companies not people. I'd assume there are a few people buying houses with cash but my guess is a lot of those stories you hear about people bidding 100k over ask and losing to a cash offer are mostly not people. Theres a good number of companies that are open about increasing their housing portfolios. Even construction companies that built thousands of starter homes per year converting to rentals only. These are long term changes, and not a quick cash grab at the bottom of the market.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Schnitz 4y ago
Homeowners are a reliable political cohort, they tend to organize quickly as soon as any issues are on the agenda that might affect the value of their land and they will reliably push for whatever increases land values. They show up at city hall to make sure they are at least the loudest group on the issue. Homeowners are also diligent voters. You’ll need more than 50% of people to be renters to counter this, unless you can convince renters to organize as reliably and passionately as home owners.
- jjav 4y ago
  > Homeowners are a reliable political cohort, they tend to organize quickly as soon as any issues are on the agenda that might affect the value of their land and they will reliably push for whatever increases land values. I feel like this is a myth, do you have research to back this? As a 20+ year home owner, I've never been asked to support anything to increase land/housing value (not that I'd want to, since that means higher taxes for me, which I'd rather not). I don't think this homeowner cabal to increase values actually exists. If it does, nobody invited me and nobody invited any of my homeowner friends (which is all my friends) either, so it can't be a very large group.
  - 4y ago

fennecfoxen 4y ago

As usual, the “speculators” and “out of towners” and others are convenient scapegoats, lest we have to face the underlying supply and demand and barriers to development. You want to have a monopoly on housing in a major city? I’d be hard pressed to point out an industry where that would be harder. You have literally millions of competitors.

urthor 4y ago
Absolutely this. The out of towners, who are mostly Blackrock, is just a fella with a spreadsheet tracking new dwelling approvals vs demand. All the Bay Area has to do is approve new dwellings. The issue is the politicians are landlords with investment properties.
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
San Francisco is already the second most densely populated city in the USA (the first being NYC). SF is actually already slightly more densely populated than Tokyo, which many like to tout as a mecha for de-regulated zoning.
- dublinben 4y ago
  >San Francisco is already the second most densely populated city in the USA This isn't true, even if you limit it to cities with population over 100k. New York City, Jersey City, and Paterson, NJ are all more dense than SF.[0] San Francisco is effectively tied with notoriously anti-development Cambridge, MA. Quite a few smaller cities around the country are more dense as well.[1] The housing situation in San Francisco is nothing to be proud of, unless you think that having the highest median home prices or median rents is a laudable achievement. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
- synaesthesisx 4y ago
  But the difference is, NYC is constantly building new housing inventory, with constant construction and developments going up left and right. Meanwhile most of San Francisco is just streets of old single-family homes.