13 ms·

1. Politicians and the bureaucratic class have deep investments in real estate 2. Foreign money keeps flooding into western economies to find a safe haven and

by spaceman_2020 3y ago

1. Politicians and the bureaucratic class have deep investments in real estate 2. Foreign money keeps flooding into western economies to find a safe haven and lack of capital controls. A bulk of it goes into real estate. 3. Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners. The entire system is rigged against anything that would impact home prices - such as an increase in supply or change in zoning laws. Entire countries seem to be perfectly okay with watching its young people be priced out of cities and areas they work in as long as "number go up". All the hand-wringing about political gridlock is just a cover for basic greed. Detestable.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners...the entire system is rigged Homeowners, irrespective of age, vote more. This is in part enabled by material comforts. But there may be other layers of causation. The first two are problematic per se (though I'm uncertain of the effect size). But the last is fundamental--if someone can vote but can't care to, they're not going to have their interests represented.
- umeshunni 3y ago
  > But there may be other layers of causation. Having a permanent, of sorts, attachment to a location incentivizes people to vote to protect their interests in that location.
- atoav 3y ago
  The real question is, if you are profiting from this system: How can you stop people from caring, or alternatively how can you make them vote against their interest? This is ofc a rhetorical question as you can see the answers play out very clearly in nearly every conservative party in the world (and much more subtle and convoluted in the parties left of them).
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > How can you stop people from caring, or alternatively how can you make them vote against their interest? Voting against their interests: nothing. That said, I've often found folks deemed to be voting against their interests to be doing nothing of the sort. Those who don't care are, for me, also fine. They're self selecting out of having a voice. If they want to have one in the future, they can engage. The tragedy is those who want to engage but can't. Due to registration requirements, ersatz poll taxes, difficulty of getting to and from poll sites or keeping tabs on the election calendar. (Apathy is unlikely to be solved with reforms versus education. I've never met an apathetic voter who cast a blank ballot in protest. If they show up, they tend to find something to vote on.)
    - prottog 3y ago
      > The tragedy is those who want to engage but can't. Due to registration requirements, ersatz poll taxes, difficulty of getting to and from poll sites or keeping tabs on the election calendar. I hear about this every now and then, but is it an issue in any real number? Maybe the problem of the "difficulty of getting to and from poll sites", which I can see arising due to the nature of this country being large, spread out, and automobile-centric. Even Georgia, which was recently under fire for so-called voter restriction laws, hands out voter ID cards for free or a non-driver state ID card for under $40 that lasts nearly a decade. I can only imagine that anyone who is unable to obtain one of those has much bigger problems than voting every few years.
      - bobthepanda 3y ago
        So things depend on the state, but IIRC some states have been way more brazen about others. For example, at one point a proposal was floated to force changes in Texas polling center distribution, but only in counties with over a million people, which was pretty nakedly partisan. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/23/texas-voting-polling-restrictions/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/23/texas-voting-polling...
        3y ago
- segamegazord 3y ago
  Countries like Australia have compulsory voting and are still suffering the same issues. You are right - there are other layers of causation.
  - alexdunmow 3y ago
    We even have preferential voting. The problem is nearly two-thirds of MPs - out of 144 of them - own more than one property. Which is more than three times the national average: less than 20 per cent of Australians own more than one property. Even the so-called "left leaning" party are landlords. We are run by the landed gentry. They'll continue looking out for their own. Houses are the safest asset as they're practically 100% Government backed.
Chyzwar 3y ago
Migration to bigger tier one cities is partly to blame. Many young people want to live in NY and rent a shoebox flat for life. They think that they can become Friends protagonists when in fact they become broke and blame government.
- mjevans 3y ago
  Or, it's where their job is, which requires them to come into the office on some sort of basis.
- parthdesai 3y ago
  Or at least in North America, younger people don't want to live in soulless suburbs where there's literally nothing to do apart from visiting the same big box stores, chain restaurants and bars in exactly same looking plaza.
  - prottog 3y ago
    Real estate isn't immune to the law of supply and demand, which mandate that you can only pick at most two out of size (or quality) of the housing unit, location (and the quality thereof), and price. Most places in the US are either affordable and boring or the other way around. > soulless suburbs where there's literally nothing This is a bit of a reductionist take on those younger people's part. You can have just as much fun at the TGI Friday's at your local strip mall as you can at the hippest restaurant no one else has ever heard of in Brooklyn. It's just a matter of who you spend that time with, and how you perceive that time, in the Stoic tradition.
    - P_I_Staker 3y ago
      > You can have just as much fun at the TGI Friday's at your local strip mall as you can at the hippest restaurant no one else has ever heard of in Brooklyn. It's just a matter of who you spend that time with, and how you perceive that time, in the Stoic tradition. It's not just about restaurants. I'm not going to be able to go to concerts or events. There will be no specialized stores. Even in the example you gave, many of these chains are absolutely terrible now. Going to a local place means better food. It's not all pretense. As the saying goes: It's hard to have fun with dogshit in your mouth.
vogon_laureate 3y ago
It’s even worse because there’s an adult social care crisis, a pension crisis, and in some areas a rundown NHS and school system. So all the incentives are towards not just home ownership but also additional buy-to-let ownership so that those with the means can afford private health care, dentistry, school fees for their kids/grandkids, inheritance for the kids who are priced out of the market, and retirement. It’s a gravity well of incentives towards absolute property gluttony and creating an overheated housing market and massive social inequality.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
  > adult social care crisis, a pension crisis, and in some areas a rundown NHS I remember about 10 years ago, "the idea" was that retirees would, as their health starts to decline, do equity-release in their homes to pay for their care needs (on the basis that the NHS would start to means-test care based on the value of all assets, including housing, so that if an OAP has £1m locked-up in their house and they probably have less than 5-6 years to live it's only fair that they liquidate some of that wealth instead of expecting the NHS to pay for everything - while those who don't own their own houses, would still benefit from free NHS care). I left the UK just-over 10 years ago (but I still visit my parents a few times a year and do the WFH-thing-but-abroad) so I'm not as clued-in on subtler points of public policy, but I'm curious if that's still the case? ...or if the Tories reversed that decision in the 8 years they've held power? (after-all, it would be anathema to Daily Mail readers, who give me the impression that they fully expect to enjoy their house-prices even after they're dead).
  - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
    Theresa May tried to sell this as part of her election campaign. It was a disaster. No one wants to be forced to give up some of their personal wealth to pay more for an NHS they've already paid into. That may not be fair, but when most voters are property owners you're not going to get a different outcome. This is an interesting topic because it highlights how the political and economic culture is broken and incapable of effective national strategy. I don't think housing, health, industrial policy, education, or anything else can be fixed without a complete overhaul of the UK's political parties, media, and systems.
dahwolf 3y ago
"Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners". Sounds like democracy?
- lmm 3y ago
  > "Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners". > Sounds like democracy? Young people might get their first chance to vote at age 23 - assuming they paid for the right kind of ID, or navigated an impenetrable web of underpaid bureaucrats to get the mythical free ID. And if they manage to get off work on election day. Meanwhile the elderly are reliably on the register (because they're not being forced to move around, because again they own a home) and encouraged to vote even if they're expected to die before the results take effect.
  - _dain_ 3y ago
    >Young people might get their first chance to vote at age 23 - assuming they paid for the right kind of ID, or navigated an impenetrable web of underpaid bureaucrats to get the mythical free ID. uhh what? we're talking about britain here. I don't know what kind of yank(?) political dysfunction you're alluding to, but nobody has any trouble voting because of a lack of ID here. you don't need one to vote. you notify the electoral roll when you move into a house or flat, then a few weeks before election day you get a bit of paper in the post, you can bring it to the polling station to prove you live there.
    - switch007 3y ago
      You’re a little out of date with your info https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/about-14000-people-england-denied-vote-due-id-rule-electoral-commission-2023-06-22/ https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/about-14000-people-england-...
      - peterfirefly 3y ago
        The article says that 70% of them hadn't bothered to bring their ID. Hardly the result of draconian laws, is it? It also doesn't say how many of the 30% actually had the right to vote. It only says that they "brought a type that was not accepted".
WalterBright 3y ago
> Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners. This doesn't explain the constant increase in property tax levies being passed in Washington State.
- klyrs 3y ago
  If you're going to cherrypick a single example to rebut the existence of an overarching trend in the UK, you could at least pick a state with an income tax. Or, perhaps, not beat the dead horse at all and talk about Britain.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    Washington state just decided that capital gains were not income, and imposed a 7% tax on them. Besides, I don't see how the age demographics in Wa state would be materially different from Britain's.
    - klyrs 3y ago
      If you're so fixated on Washington state, you should really learn its history. And also British history. They're very different places with very different politics. You're comparing a flyover state (speaking as somebody born there) to the center of a colonial power. And a 7% flat tax is a trifle.
      - dontlaugh 3y ago
        Exactly. 20% is also very low. Maybe consider complaining when it’s progressive up to 90%.
pradn 3y ago
That’s also the set castigating young people who want to live in expensive cities. Prudence dictates you must live far far away. Why are you even thinking of living in New York City, you fool?! Why live in a cesspool like you goof!! It’s become a culture war, too.
majormajor 3y ago
The purpose of real estate development is to make real estate more valuable. So if you have laws restricting that development you need to look further than just "real-estate investors don't want development." Even ones not doing the development benefit financially - landlords love being able to raise the rents cause other people in the area built a bunch of new shit. The better off - and therefore more politically-connected - you are as a homeowner, the more you care about "I don't want the wrong people living next to me" compared to "I need to maximize short-term property values." (And the long-term property values trends clearly shows that cities with more development, that more people want to move to, are where you find ROI.)
- DeathArrow 3y ago
  > the more you care about "I don't want the wrong people living next to me" Then, by some modern definition, you are a nazi and a bigot.
- pitaj 3y ago
  > The purpose of real estate development is to make real estate more valuable. Nope. It's to make money for the developers. > Even ones not doing the development benefit financially - landlords love being able to raise the rents cause other people in the area built a bunch of new shit. Gentrification is a result of shortage. When wealthier people are priced out of rich neighborhoods, the only place for them to go is poor neighborhoods. It just so happens that poor neighborhoods with the least amount of political power are the first ones to be redeveloped when there's a shortage of housing. > And the long-term property values trends clearly shows that cities with more development, that more people want to move to, are where you find ROI. Reversed causation. It's literally just supply and demand. Places with high demand and not enough supply have growing property values. Places that are actually able to build housing to even kinda meet demand are doing much better. You can see a ton of development but that doesn't really mean anything. Often there's not even enough development to meet the rate of growth in a given city, let alone reduce prices meaningfully.
  - majormajor 3y ago
    > Nope. It's to make money for the developers. Sure. Let's look a simple condo case: Developer pays X for property. Developer spends Y to build a building. Developer sells N units for Z. To make money, NZ has to be greater than XY aka the total value of that parcel is now higher. > Reversed causation. It's literally just supply and demand. Places with high demand and not enough supply have growing property values. Places that are actually able to build housing to even kinda meet demand are doing much better. Yeah, short-term, why was that parcel before the condo building worth less? Because there was less demand for what was there before than for what was there after it. Development increase short-term values by providing immediate units with nicer amenities or better condition or more size or whatever. Probably pretty uncontroversial. But also development increases long-term values by continuing to grow long term demand. Development, residences, businesses, services - in the most successful cities, all that flow of money produces more and more demand and value over time. Not a lot of demand to live on an empty lot in the middle of nowhere where there's not a nice house and there's no nearby jobs... So flip the causation: if there hadn't been development to allow all the people in [popular city of your choice] in the first place, it wouldn't be so popular and have such high demand today. That's not completely separate from geographical factors like rivers, but it's also got a lot to do with development - take, say, the land where a river meets a train line and compare it to the land downstream without the train.
bradleyjg 3y ago
Greed is exactly the right word. There is a flat unwillingness to acknowledge or reason from the fact by so many homeowners that they are sitting on giant, completely unearned windfalls. There’s a huge sense of entitlement around these inflated prices.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Lastodon 3y ago
  It is an unearned windfall, but people deserve to keep their homes. It bears noting that the issue is caused by property investors, not homeowners. How about we go for the individuals that own more than 3 properties and let grandma keep what she earned?
  - CaptainMarvel 3y ago
    She may have earned the house to some degree (the article outlines a number of government subsidies which make this doubtful), but she definitely didn’t earn the land value increase. I’m reminded of this quote: > Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title.
    - DeathArrow 3y ago
      Marx or Lenin couldn't have said it better. Marxists have a fetish with seizing private property and forcefully equalizing people in poverty.
    - ilyt 3y ago
      Sure but most people just want to live in that house, not capitalize on it
    - chongli 3y ago
      Grandma, living in the same house she’s lived in since 1972, collecting a fixed income pension cheque once a month, is not what I’d describe as a “rich person.” Look instead to the people who own golf courses, sports stadiums, super yachts, private jets and the like.
DeathArrow 3y ago
>The entire system is rigged against anything that would impact home prices - such as an increase in supply or change in zoning laws. The prices in high demand areas, are going to be high, whether residents can legally oppose new developments or not. How much does a house cost in California or New York?
talideon 3y ago
> Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners. This is just a self-defeating excuse. "Monopolised" implies that they're somehow preventing younger people from voting. The only way in which this is a thing is by scheduling elections on days that are inconvenient for younger people to vote. If you want change in who represents you, the first thing you need to do is vote. The second thing is to get others to vote.
- Gareth321 3y ago
  While true, check out this demographic map for the US: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#/media/File:USA_Population_Pyramid.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...). The majority of people are over the age of 30, and most of them live in owner-occupied homes. In fact, 66% of all Americans live in owner-occupied homes. I imagine these statistics look similar or even worse in the UK. There is a real demographic advantage for the elderly, and those who own homes, even if we ignore the propensity for young people to fail to vote.
- ilyt 3y ago
  now compare how many people are in age of 18-35 vs 35-90
scott_w 3y ago
> 3. Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners. This, in my opinion, is the biggest factor compared to the other two. Politicians that want to win power have to win votes. Older people (and homeowners) vote more than younger (renting) people. A party that prioritises younger people over older people will be referred to as His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition. The reason Liz Truss was kicked out of the PM's office by her party wasn't because her spending plans were economically illiterate. It's because her plans started rapidly increasing interest rates, so higher mortgages, which is starting the process of fucking over Tory voters.
nvarsj 3y ago
It's basically The Wire in the making here in the UK. In 10-20 years, if not now already, we are going to have full blown ghettos I'm sure. Whereas 10 years ago I felt safe in most parts of London. Crime has noticeably gone up and I'm sure it's just going to get worse as gangs increase. Even in safe areas, muggings and knife violence are on the rise. My children went to a really terrible comprehensive which I had to move them out of. The kind of stuff going on there is just making the next generation of criminals possible. And it's not the school's fault - they just don't have the resources to manage with bulge classes and staff stretched to the mental breaking limit. It's an utter shambles the state of this country. Without strong leadership it's not changing either - we need an Obama or similar charismatic leader with progressive (or hell, even moderate) ideas at this point to make some change. One thing this country has going for it over the US is that governments have a mandate to make large changes. In the US, nothing can ever change because of gridlock in congress with filibusters. So we still have some hope here, although lack of proportional representation makes it very difficult to get proper representation.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners...the entire system is rigged Homeowners, irrespective of age, vote more. This is in part enabled by material comforts. But there may be other layers of causation. The first two are problematic per se (though I'm uncertain of the effect size). But the last is fundamental--if someone can vote but can't care to, they're not going to have their interests represented.

umeshunni 3y ago
> But there may be other layers of causation. Having a permanent, of sorts, attachment to a location incentivizes people to vote to protect their interests in that location.
atoav 3y ago
The real question is, if you are profiting from this system: How can you stop people from caring, or alternatively how can you make them vote against their interest? This is ofc a rhetorical question as you can see the answers play out very clearly in nearly every conservative party in the world (and much more subtle and convoluted in the parties left of them).
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > How can you stop people from caring, or alternatively how can you make them vote against their interest? Voting against their interests: nothing. That said, I've often found folks deemed to be voting against their interests to be doing nothing of the sort. Those who don't care are, for me, also fine. They're self selecting out of having a voice. If they want to have one in the future, they can engage. The tragedy is those who want to engage but can't. Due to registration requirements, ersatz poll taxes, difficulty of getting to and from poll sites or keeping tabs on the election calendar. (Apathy is unlikely to be solved with reforms versus education. I've never met an apathetic voter who cast a blank ballot in protest. If they show up, they tend to find something to vote on.)
  - prottog 3y ago
    > The tragedy is those who want to engage but can't. Due to registration requirements, ersatz poll taxes, difficulty of getting to and from poll sites or keeping tabs on the election calendar. I hear about this every now and then, but is it an issue in any real number? Maybe the problem of the "difficulty of getting to and from poll sites", which I can see arising due to the nature of this country being large, spread out, and automobile-centric. Even Georgia, which was recently under fire for so-called voter restriction laws, hands out voter ID cards for free or a non-driver state ID card for under $40 that lasts nearly a decade. I can only imagine that anyone who is unable to obtain one of those has much bigger problems than voting every few years.
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      So things depend on the state, but IIRC some states have been way more brazen about others. For example, at one point a proposal was floated to force changes in Texas polling center distribution, but only in counties with over a million people, which was pretty nakedly partisan. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/23/texas-voting-polling-restrictions/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/23/texas-voting-polling...
      - 3y ago
segamegazord 3y ago
Countries like Australia have compulsory voting and are still suffering the same issues. You are right - there are other layers of causation.
- alexdunmow 3y ago
  We even have preferential voting. The problem is nearly two-thirds of MPs - out of 144 of them - own more than one property. Which is more than three times the national average: less than 20 per cent of Australians own more than one property. Even the so-called "left leaning" party are landlords. We are run by the landed gentry. They'll continue looking out for their own. Houses are the safest asset as they're practically 100% Government backed.

Chyzwar 3y ago

Migration to bigger tier one cities is partly to blame. Many young people want to live in NY and rent a shoebox flat for life. They think that they can become Friends protagonists when in fact they become broke and blame government.

mjevans 3y ago
Or, it's where their job is, which requires them to come into the office on some sort of basis.
parthdesai 3y ago
Or at least in North America, younger people don't want to live in soulless suburbs where there's literally nothing to do apart from visiting the same big box stores, chain restaurants and bars in exactly same looking plaza.
- prottog 3y ago
  Real estate isn't immune to the law of supply and demand, which mandate that you can only pick at most two out of size (or quality) of the housing unit, location (and the quality thereof), and price. Most places in the US are either affordable and boring or the other way around. > soulless suburbs where there's literally nothing This is a bit of a reductionist take on those younger people's part. You can have just as much fun at the TGI Friday's at your local strip mall as you can at the hippest restaurant no one else has ever heard of in Brooklyn. It's just a matter of who you spend that time with, and how you perceive that time, in the Stoic tradition.
  - P_I_Staker 3y ago
    > You can have just as much fun at the TGI Friday's at your local strip mall as you can at the hippest restaurant no one else has ever heard of in Brooklyn. It's just a matter of who you spend that time with, and how you perceive that time, in the Stoic tradition. It's not just about restaurants. I'm not going to be able to go to concerts or events. There will be no specialized stores. Even in the example you gave, many of these chains are absolutely terrible now. Going to a local place means better food. It's not all pretense. As the saying goes: It's hard to have fun with dogshit in your mouth.

vogon_laureate 3y ago

It’s even worse because there’s an adult social care crisis, a pension crisis, and in some areas a rundown NHS and school system. So all the incentives are towards not just home ownership but also additional buy-to-let ownership so that those with the means can afford private health care, dentistry, school fees for their kids/grandkids, inheritance for the kids who are priced out of the market, and retirement. It’s a gravity well of incentives towards absolute property gluttony and creating an overheated housing market and massive social inequality.

DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
> adult social care crisis, a pension crisis, and in some areas a rundown NHS I remember about 10 years ago, "the idea" was that retirees would, as their health starts to decline, do equity-release in their homes to pay for their care needs (on the basis that the NHS would start to means-test care based on the value of all assets, including housing, so that if an OAP has £1m locked-up in their house and they probably have less than 5-6 years to live it's only fair that they liquidate some of that wealth instead of expecting the NHS to pay for everything - while those who don't own their own houses, would still benefit from free NHS care). I left the UK just-over 10 years ago (but I still visit my parents a few times a year and do the WFH-thing-but-abroad) so I'm not as clued-in on subtler points of public policy, but I'm curious if that's still the case? ...or if the Tories reversed that decision in the 8 years they've held power? (after-all, it would be anathema to Daily Mail readers, who give me the impression that they fully expect to enjoy their house-prices even after they're dead).
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  Theresa May tried to sell this as part of her election campaign. It was a disaster. No one wants to be forced to give up some of their personal wealth to pay more for an NHS they've already paid into. That may not be fair, but when most voters are property owners you're not going to get a different outcome. This is an interesting topic because it highlights how the political and economic culture is broken and incapable of effective national strategy. I don't think housing, health, industrial policy, education, or anything else can be fixed without a complete overhaul of the UK's political parties, media, and systems.

dahwolf 3y ago

"Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners". Sounds like democracy?

lmm 3y ago
> "Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners". > Sounds like democracy? Young people might get their first chance to vote at age 23 - assuming they paid for the right kind of ID, or navigated an impenetrable web of underpaid bureaucrats to get the mythical free ID. And if they manage to get off work on election day. Meanwhile the elderly are reliably on the register (because they're not being forced to move around, because again they own a home) and encouraged to vote even if they're expected to die before the results take effect.
- _dain_ 3y ago
  >Young people might get their first chance to vote at age 23 - assuming they paid for the right kind of ID, or navigated an impenetrable web of underpaid bureaucrats to get the mythical free ID. uhh what? we're talking about britain here. I don't know what kind of yank(?) political dysfunction you're alluding to, but nobody has any trouble voting because of a lack of ID here. you don't need one to vote. you notify the electoral roll when you move into a house or flat, then a few weeks before election day you get a bit of paper in the post, you can bring it to the polling station to prove you live there.
  - switch007 3y ago
    You’re a little out of date with your info https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/about-14000-people-england-denied-vote-due-id-rule-electoral-commission-2023-06-22/ https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/about-14000-people-england-...
    - peterfirefly 3y ago
      The article says that 70% of them hadn't bothered to bring their ID. Hardly the result of draconian laws, is it? It also doesn't say how many of the 30% actually had the right to vote. It only says that they "brought a type that was not accepted".

WalterBright 3y ago

> Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners. This doesn't explain the constant increase in property tax levies being passed in Washington State.

klyrs 3y ago
If you're going to cherrypick a single example to rebut the existence of an overarching trend in the UK, you could at least pick a state with an income tax. Or, perhaps, not beat the dead horse at all and talk about Britain.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Washington state just decided that capital gains were not income, and imposed a 7% tax on them. Besides, I don't see how the age demographics in Wa state would be materially different from Britain's.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    If you're so fixated on Washington state, you should really learn its history. And also British history. They're very different places with very different politics. You're comparing a flyover state (speaking as somebody born there) to the center of a colonial power. And a 7% flat tax is a trifle.
    - dontlaugh 3y ago
      Exactly. 20% is also very low. Maybe consider complaining when it’s progressive up to 90%.

pradn 3y ago

That’s also the set castigating young people who want to live in expensive cities. Prudence dictates you must live far far away. Why are you even thinking of living in New York City, you fool?! Why live in a cesspool like you goof!! It’s become a culture war, too.

majormajor 3y ago

The purpose of real estate development is to make real estate more valuable. So if you have laws restricting that development you need to look further than just "real-estate investors don't want development." Even ones not doing the development benefit financially - landlords love being able to raise the rents cause other people in the area built a bunch of new shit. The better off - and therefore more politically-connected - you are as a homeowner, the more you care about "I don't want the wrong people living next to me" compared to "I need to maximize short-term property values." (And the long-term property values trends clearly shows that cities with more development, that more people want to move to, are where you find ROI.)

DeathArrow 3y ago
> the more you care about "I don't want the wrong people living next to me" Then, by some modern definition, you are a nazi and a bigot.
pitaj 3y ago
> The purpose of real estate development is to make real estate more valuable. Nope. It's to make money for the developers. > Even ones not doing the development benefit financially - landlords love being able to raise the rents cause other people in the area built a bunch of new shit. Gentrification is a result of shortage. When wealthier people are priced out of rich neighborhoods, the only place for them to go is poor neighborhoods. It just so happens that poor neighborhoods with the least amount of political power are the first ones to be redeveloped when there's a shortage of housing. > And the long-term property values trends clearly shows that cities with more development, that more people want to move to, are where you find ROI. Reversed causation. It's literally just supply and demand. Places with high demand and not enough supply have growing property values. Places that are actually able to build housing to even kinda meet demand are doing much better. You can see a ton of development but that doesn't really mean anything. Often there's not even enough development to meet the rate of growth in a given city, let alone reduce prices meaningfully.
- majormajor 3y ago
  > Nope. It's to make money for the developers. Sure. Let's look a simple condo case: Developer pays X for property. Developer spends Y to build a building. Developer sells N units for Z. To make money, NZ has to be greater than XY aka the total value of that parcel is now higher. > Reversed causation. It's literally just supply and demand. Places with high demand and not enough supply have growing property values. Places that are actually able to build housing to even kinda meet demand are doing much better. Yeah, short-term, why was that parcel before the condo building worth less? Because there was less demand for what was there before than for what was there after it. Development increase short-term values by providing immediate units with nicer amenities or better condition or more size or whatever. Probably pretty uncontroversial. But also development increases long-term values by continuing to grow long term demand. Development, residences, businesses, services - in the most successful cities, all that flow of money produces more and more demand and value over time. Not a lot of demand to live on an empty lot in the middle of nowhere where there's not a nice house and there's no nearby jobs... So flip the causation: if there hadn't been development to allow all the people in [popular city of your choice] in the first place, it wouldn't be so popular and have such high demand today. That's not completely separate from geographical factors like rivers, but it's also got a lot to do with development - take, say, the land where a river meets a train line and compare it to the land downstream without the train.

bradleyjg 3y ago

Greed is exactly the right word. There is a flat unwillingness to acknowledge or reason from the fact by so many homeowners that they are sitting on giant, completely unearned windfalls. There’s a huge sense of entitlement around these inflated prices.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Lastodon 3y ago
It is an unearned windfall, but people deserve to keep their homes. It bears noting that the issue is caused by property investors, not homeowners. How about we go for the individuals that own more than 3 properties and let grandma keep what she earned?
- CaptainMarvel 3y ago
  She may have earned the house to some degree (the article outlines a number of government subsidies which make this doubtful), but she definitely didn’t earn the land value increase. I’m reminded of this quote: > Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title.
  - DeathArrow 3y ago
    Marx or Lenin couldn't have said it better. Marxists have a fetish with seizing private property and forcefully equalizing people in poverty.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    Sure but most people just want to live in that house, not capitalize on it
  - chongli 3y ago
    Grandma, living in the same house she’s lived in since 1972, collecting a fixed income pension cheque once a month, is not what I’d describe as a “rich person.” Look instead to the people who own golf courses, sports stadiums, super yachts, private jets and the like.

DeathArrow 3y ago

>The entire system is rigged against anything that would impact home prices - such as an increase in supply or change in zoning laws. The prices in high demand areas, are going to be high, whether residents can legally oppose new developments or not. How much does a house cost in California or New York?

talideon 3y ago

> Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners. This is just a self-defeating excuse. "Monopolised" implies that they're somehow preventing younger people from voting. The only way in which this is a thing is by scheduling elections on days that are inconvenient for younger people to vote. If you want change in who represents you, the first thing you need to do is vote. The second thing is to get others to vote.

Gareth321 3y ago
While true, check out this demographic map for the US: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#/media/File:USA_Population_Pyramid.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...). The majority of people are over the age of 30, and most of them live in owner-occupied homes. In fact, 66% of all Americans live in owner-occupied homes. I imagine these statistics look similar or even worse in the UK. There is a real demographic advantage for the elderly, and those who own homes, even if we ignore the propensity for young people to fail to vote.
ilyt 3y ago
now compare how many people are in age of 18-35 vs 35-90

scott_w 3y ago

> 3. Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners. This, in my opinion, is the biggest factor compared to the other two. Politicians that want to win power have to win votes. Older people (and homeowners) vote more than younger (renting) people. A party that prioritises younger people over older people will be referred to as His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition. The reason Liz Truss was kicked out of the PM's office by her party wasn't because her spending plans were economically illiterate. It's because her plans started rapidly increasing interest rates, so higher mortgages, which is starting the process of fucking over Tory voters.

nvarsj 3y ago

It's basically The Wire in the making here in the UK. In 10-20 years, if not now already, we are going to have full blown ghettos I'm sure. Whereas 10 years ago I felt safe in most parts of London. Crime has noticeably gone up and I'm sure it's just going to get worse as gangs increase. Even in safe areas, muggings and knife violence are on the rise. My children went to a really terrible comprehensive which I had to move them out of. The kind of stuff going on there is just making the next generation of criminals possible. And it's not the school's fault - they just don't have the resources to manage with bulge classes and staff stretched to the mental breaking limit. It's an utter shambles the state of this country. Without strong leadership it's not changing either - we need an Obama or similar charismatic leader with progressive (or hell, even moderate) ideas at this point to make some change. One thing this country has going for it over the US is that governments have a mandate to make large changes. In the US, nothing can ever change because of gridlock in congress with filibusters. So we still have some hope here, although lack of proportional representation makes it very difficult to get proper representation.