5 ms·

> Blackrock and Vanguard are blights on this planet. Corporate landlords weren't the ones saying "you can't build here because it ruins the neighborhood's 'cha

> Blackrock and Vanguard are blights on this planet. Corporate landlords weren't the ones saying "you can't build here because it ruins the neighborhood's 'character.'"

klabb3 3y ago
Both can be true. You can have cancer and bubonic plague at the same time.
sublinear 3y ago
So much this. It's illegal to build higher density housing in so many residential zones.
HarryHirsch 3y ago
Housing as an investment vehicle is government policy - if the oligarchy insisted on a different policy it would be implemented.
- dehrmann 3y ago
  There might be some corporate actors in favor of this, but housing as an investment is wildly popular among most Americans. I wouldn't be surprised if most renters support it because they see it as a vehicle to wealth rather than what prices them out of the market.
midoridensha 3y ago
Yep, as usual, people keep whining about "the corporations!" and "the billionaires!" and blaming them for America's problems. The problem isn't them so much, it's the regular middle-class voter. The NIMBYs aren't billionaires or big corporations, though some corporations (not most) have been taking advantage of the situation. The problem is that regular, everyday Americans are greedy assholes, and expect (no, demand!) to make a huge profit after buying a house and owning it for a couple of years, and will do whatever they can to ensure this, no matter how it hurts the rest of society.
- piva00 3y ago
  Housing affordability is not an American issue though, it's happening in any major developed city across the globe. There is something else to it that isn't purely zoning laws, building codes or whatever. My personal opinion is that it's the culmination of policies incentivising housing as an investment vehicle, I know plenty of people who bought a first house when interest rates were low (or negative like here in Sweden), taking a loan as large as possible, which in turn pushed prices up, with the assumption that house prices always grow in value. When they grow in value the plan is to sell the first house, use the gains as a down payment springboard for their next loan on a larger house, rinse and repeat until you've built wealth. Cheap loans inflated the price of housing very fast, building new housing got anchored on that price point, and now loans are not that cheap and developers don't want to build more if prices are crashing. I have no idea how to break this cycle without a crash/bubble popping. If a government intervenes to create cheap housing (such as Sweden's Miljonprogrammet in the 60s-70s [0]) it will crash prices. It's a massive political issue because no one who has bought on inflated prices want to see their assets devalue, no politicians would survive in their career by implementing policies that would crash house prices. Corporate landlords are just another facet of this imbalance, they can play around with their stock of vacant homes to keep inflated prices (something that a private landlord with a few units on mortgage really can't afford to do for long), they have money to scoop up houses selling below their target price, etc. It's happening everywhere I see, everywhere where my friends and family live at, in multiple continents... There's something broken, and the correction is going to be very painful. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Programme
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    It's not happening everywhere: we don't have this problem in Japan. >Cheap loans inflated the price of housing very fast Interest rates here are 0.5% for primary homes. That's not the problem. The problem is a lack of supply. Over here, there's constant new construction, and zoning codes don't prevent new construction or higher density the way they do in other countries. So houses don't appreciate; they depreciate. So people don't use them as "investments"; they're just a place to live. >Corporate landlords are just another facet of this imbalance, they can play around with their stock of vacant homes to keep inflated prices We have corporate landlords here too. High competition and lots of supply keep prices stable.

> Blackrock and Vanguard are blights on this planet. Corporate landlords weren't the ones saying "you can't build here because it ruins the neighborhood's 'character.'"

klabb3 3y ago

Both can be true. You can have cancer and bubonic plague at the same time.

sublinear 3y ago

So much this. It's illegal to build higher density housing in so many residential zones.

HarryHirsch 3y ago

Housing as an investment vehicle is government policy - if the oligarchy insisted on a different policy it would be implemented.

dehrmann 3y ago
There might be some corporate actors in favor of this, but housing as an investment is wildly popular among most Americans. I wouldn't be surprised if most renters support it because they see it as a vehicle to wealth rather than what prices them out of the market.

midoridensha 3y ago

Yep, as usual, people keep whining about "the corporations!" and "the billionaires!" and blaming them for America's problems. The problem isn't them so much, it's the regular middle-class voter. The NIMBYs aren't billionaires or big corporations, though some corporations (not most) have been taking advantage of the situation. The problem is that regular, everyday Americans are greedy assholes, and expect (no, demand!) to make a huge profit after buying a house and owning it for a couple of years, and will do whatever they can to ensure this, no matter how it hurts the rest of society.

piva00 3y ago
Housing affordability is not an American issue though, it's happening in any major developed city across the globe. There is something else to it that isn't purely zoning laws, building codes or whatever. My personal opinion is that it's the culmination of policies incentivising housing as an investment vehicle, I know plenty of people who bought a first house when interest rates were low (or negative like here in Sweden), taking a loan as large as possible, which in turn pushed prices up, with the assumption that house prices always grow in value. When they grow in value the plan is to sell the first house, use the gains as a down payment springboard for their next loan on a larger house, rinse and repeat until you've built wealth. Cheap loans inflated the price of housing very fast, building new housing got anchored on that price point, and now loans are not that cheap and developers don't want to build more if prices are crashing. I have no idea how to break this cycle without a crash/bubble popping. If a government intervenes to create cheap housing (such as Sweden's Miljonprogrammet in the 60s-70s [0]) it will crash prices. It's a massive political issue because no one who has bought on inflated prices want to see their assets devalue, no politicians would survive in their career by implementing policies that would crash house prices. Corporate landlords are just another facet of this imbalance, they can play around with their stock of vacant homes to keep inflated prices (something that a private landlord with a few units on mortgage really can't afford to do for long), they have money to scoop up houses selling below their target price, etc. It's happening everywhere I see, everywhere where my friends and family live at, in multiple continents... There's something broken, and the correction is going to be very painful. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Programme
- midoridensha 3y ago
  It's not happening everywhere: we don't have this problem in Japan. >Cheap loans inflated the price of housing very fast Interest rates here are 0.5% for primary homes. That's not the problem. The problem is a lack of supply. Over here, there's constant new construction, and zoning codes don't prevent new construction or higher density the way they do in other countries. So houses don't appreciate; they depreciate. So people don't use them as "investments"; they're just a place to live. >Corporate landlords are just another facet of this imbalance, they can play around with their stock of vacant homes to keep inflated prices We have corporate landlords here too. High competition and lots of supply keep prices stable.