3 ms·

> and sell. Thus decreasing the total number of rental apartments on the market. This is hard to steel-man. In this hypothetical, did you also tear down the a

> and sell. Thus decreasing the total number of rental apartments on the market. This is hard to steel-man. In this hypothetical, did you also tear down the apartment before you sold it? The neighborhood I grew up in had 250 homes. When my parents sold the house, the neighborhood didn't suddenly drop down to 249 homes! It didn't even lose net families, the new owners moved right in. It doesn't matter if its put up for monthly rent or sold to a homeowner. As long as someone lives in it, it helps balance the city's supply-demand curve. If you'd rather sell than put someone in the unit, that would be an intended outcome. The rest of the city doesn't care if you continue owning it or if you're forced to sell it to someone else who feels they are capable of finding an occupant for the unit. More generally, this is why currency is generally mildly inflationary. In a successful society, any stores of assets are generally put to use rather than passively hoarded. Inflation encourages those with large amounts of cash to reinvest it -- even if that's just by buying index funds, the money goes towards enterprises which can make better use of the money. In NYC, real estate assets are not inflationary enough to encourage overseas passive property owners to rent out the units. They're okay losing 20% of their money over a decade because it's small a hedge against their current government/currency collapsing. Increased taxes would put pressure on passive property owners to hire a property manager who can manage to rent out the units for them.

dagw 4y ago
It doesn't matter if its put up for monthly rent or sold to a homeowner. This is where you and I disagree. Renters and buyers make up different demographics. Make renting hard and you get less mobility and/or higher rents. Fewer people will move to a city for short term opportunities and it will be slightly harder to hire people from 'out of town' since they'll either have to buy an apartment on basically day 1 or be forced rent a higher priced, lower quality apartment than what they could get in another city. The people who do move to the city will on average be the sort of people with more capital and who can easier make the necessary down payments. People who have a place will be less likely to move to a place the suits their current life situation better since the overall housing liquidity will decrease, meaning you'll get inefficient allocation of housing resources. Changing the balance of rental opportunities changes the city. Not necessarily for either the better or the worse, but it is a change.
- runnerup 4y ago
  I enjoy pondering this.
- fragmede 4y ago
  > Renters and buyers make up different demographics. They both exist in one demographic we all live in - the need to have some sort of shelter to live in. So this is true to some degree, but the biggest monetary difference between $2000/month in rent vs a $2000/month mortgage is that unaffordable-to-most down-payment. And where is the tenant? After renting the same place for 15 years, vs paying a mortgage for 15 years, who's got equity built up and can sell, and who's been paying someone else's mortgage? > have to buy an apartment on basically day 1 Maybe before AirBNB that gap was wider, but if you need a house somewhere for a week or three, it's a great option. Prior to that, corporations had short-term rentals they placed people in but these days it's easier to use AirBNB for that purpose. And it's accessible to way more people. My underlying belief is that it's better for people to own things rather than rent. Eg buy a car instead of leasing it, because at the end of the loan period, you now own a thing. It is yours. Not everyone will share this belief, but the idea of PE firms owning the majority of housing, with most people renting shitty apartments, and money further concentrating at the top, is quite scary to me and paints a dystopian picture for the future.

dagw 4y ago

It doesn't matter if its put up for monthly rent or sold to a homeowner. This is where you and I disagree. Renters and buyers make up different demographics. Make renting hard and you get less mobility and/or higher rents. Fewer people will move to a city for short term opportunities and it will be slightly harder to hire people from 'out of town' since they'll either have to buy an apartment on basically day 1 or be forced rent a higher priced, lower quality apartment than what they could get in another city. The people who do move to the city will on average be the sort of people with more capital and who can easier make the necessary down payments. People who have a place will be less likely to move to a place the suits their current life situation better since the overall housing liquidity will decrease, meaning you'll get inefficient allocation of housing resources. Changing the balance of rental opportunities changes the city. Not necessarily for either the better or the worse, but it is a change.

runnerup 4y ago
I enjoy pondering this.
fragmede 4y ago
> Renters and buyers make up different demographics. They both exist in one demographic we all live in - the need to have some sort of shelter to live in. So this is true to some degree, but the biggest monetary difference between $2000/month in rent vs a $2000/month mortgage is that unaffordable-to-most down-payment. And where is the tenant? After renting the same place for 15 years, vs paying a mortgage for 15 years, who's got equity built up and can sell, and who's been paying someone else's mortgage? > have to buy an apartment on basically day 1 Maybe before AirBNB that gap was wider, but if you need a house somewhere for a week or three, it's a great option. Prior to that, corporations had short-term rentals they placed people in but these days it's easier to use AirBNB for that purpose. And it's accessible to way more people. My underlying belief is that it's better for people to own things rather than rent. Eg buy a car instead of leasing it, because at the end of the loan period, you now own a thing. It is yours. Not everyone will share this belief, but the idea of PE firms owning the majority of housing, with most people renting shitty apartments, and money further concentrating at the top, is quite scary to me and paints a dystopian picture for the future.