5 ms·

> The housing market is red hot right now Sorry to be harsh, but what planet was this written from? The housing market in the US is largely frozen - many peopl

> The housing market is red hot right now Sorry to be harsh, but what planet was this written from? The housing market in the US is largely frozen - many people bought at peak prices over the pandemic years at rock bottom interest rates, so now they basically can't move - they simply can't afford the same amount of house at today's rates, and many would have to lower their prices in an attempt to sell in this higher rate market. The fact that employment is still relatively high means most people aren't forced to sell, and thus prices remain unaffordably high in many cities. Edit: And rent control? Virtually every economist of all ideological stripes agrees that rent control is ultimately self defeating in the long term. And just look what happens with people that live in rent-controlled cities. Families hang on to those apartments like they're diamonds, and all it does is create a world of "haves vs. have nots", where it's like a big lottery to get a rent controlled apartment, but meanwhile you've disincentivized builders from building any new stock.

coding123 3y ago
While that may be true, it is also true that the market is red hot right now - the prices are still going up for the stock that IS available.
- lostmsu 3y ago
  It is not hot. What you describe is called thawing.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  That's not what a "red hot market" means. And the price gains are not universal. Median housing prices in the Austin metro fell 15% from May 2022 to May 2023.
  - bob_theslob646 3y ago
    "And the price gains are not universal. Median housing prices in the Austin metro fell 15% from May 2022 to May 2023" Why do you think that happened? Demand was less than supply or the prices they were asking for were outrageous or they built to many homes. Housing is a very tough area to analyze as a whole because of state rules regarding mortgages being assumable
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      It was just a bubble. Austin was the ultimate "meme stock" during the pandemic years. Austin has a lot of good things going for it, but between things like Musk, Joe Rogan, "crypto bros", tons of Silicon Valley decampers, it just got way over-hyped. One of the things Austin always had going for it was that it was a good value compared to bigger cities, but now that it's just about as expensive as those bigger cities, people are realizing the brutally hot summers, lack of easy access to mountains or oceans, relatively bland architecture and abysmal public transportation just make it overpriced.
  - phmqk76 3y ago
    Maybe be a little less pedantic and engage in good faith - of course by "red hot" I meant that sellers can name their price, with sales still often going above asking in many regions across the US. Prices shot up like a rocket ship since the beginning of the pandemic, have been remarkably durable, and still continue to climb.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      OK, I'll be less pedantic. I think it's just flat out wrong. It was a red hot market about a year and a half ago. Prices were shooting up, and there was a frenzy of buying, with lots of people feeling FOMO for not buying a house. The situation now is completely different. Housing prices rarely, rarely go down without widespread unemployment because people are so loath to sell at a loss. So the situation is a bit odd right now it that so many people can't move because interest rates are so high, but unemployment is still low so people aren't forced to sell. The reason prices have stayed relatively flat is because for the small amount of inventory that has come on the market there's still little reason to sell at a loss. That's still the opposite of any definition of a hot market.
xnx 3y ago
Concur. Existing home sales are about as low as they've been in 30 years: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/existing-home-sales https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/existing-home-sal...
bob_theslob646 3y ago
It depends on the area. There are still areas in the United States where demand is still incredibly high, meaning homes sell above asking or 50+% more than 10 years ago An example includes areas outside of the NYC metro area. Sure they aren't get peak pandemic prices but they are still getting crazy amounts of money for a home that was worth 50% less 10 years ago.
turquoisevar 3y ago
> Edit: And rent control? Virtually every economist of all ideological stripes agrees that rent control is ultimately self defeating in the long term. And just look what happens with people that live in rent-controlled cities. Families hang on to those apartments like they're diamonds, and all it does is create a world of "haves vs. have nots", where it's like a big lottery to get a rent controlled apartment, but meanwhile you've disincentivized builders from building any new stock. That “unanimous” agreement is starting to change and outside the US there was never unanimity on the subject. As per usual it is an issue that has already been tackled by other nations but that we in the US insist is a “uniquely American” issue. In countries that have a constitutions that don’t read like a product of an eleventh hour scramble to finish a homework assignment, that is to say, most western countries, they’ve chosen to enshrine certain human rights in their constitution. Like the right to accessible housing. This serves as a mandate for the government to enable this. In most countries, although details can differ, this translates to strong tenant protections and market-wide rent control. Having those two points at the foundation will literally negate any argument raised against rent control in the US. If it’s market-wide then there are no haves and have nots, everyone is a have. Another argument that’s often thrown around is that landlords would stop investing in the upkeep of property, but in a society with strong tenant protections and market-wide rent control that prospect simply doesn’t exist. Why? Because the rent control is often based on a point system that sets the price and the tenant protections require a certain standard of living. If the property isn’t kept up the landlord will receive less rent, or hell, in egregious cases no rent at all. You’ll see that with that stick behind the door, all of a sudden the landlord is perfectly capable to keep their properties up to par. Another thing that’s thrown around often is that there wouldn’t be any incentive to build more housing. Never mind the fact that in those countries this notion that the sky will come falling down has yet to come to fruition, it’s often the very same American real estate investment companies that are warning for the end of times here in the US if tenant protections and rent control will be passed, that are building and buying up rental properties over there. In fact, the same issue here, conglomeration of big corporate landlords, is becoming an issue there. Often these corporations are American and lately also Chinese. So it seems that landlords there still have a huge appetite, despite the strong tenant protections, strong tenant unions and strong rent control, all of which are even far beyond what is proposed here in the US. Because the real fact of the matter is, that as long as profit can be made, however small, people will still try to make that profit and not, like you and others are suggesting, just call it quits. This is because it simply depends on what is “normal” and in the US we need a new “normal” like the one on those other countries. And let’s be clear, that “normal” is still nothing to sneeze at, this despite the cost of construction being significantly higher in many of those countries as well as the corporate taxes that are involved. What we need in the US is more willingness to look at our peers and see how they’ve handled certain issues. But the main problem is the lack of political will, across the spectrum, to actually deal with these issues, because of corporate money being pumped around into political pockets. Which is a topic for another time I suppose.

coding123 3y ago

While that may be true, it is also true that the market is red hot right now - the prices are still going up for the stock that IS available.

lostmsu 3y ago
It is not hot. What you describe is called thawing.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
That's not what a "red hot market" means. And the price gains are not universal. Median housing prices in the Austin metro fell 15% from May 2022 to May 2023.
- bob_theslob646 3y ago
  "And the price gains are not universal. Median housing prices in the Austin metro fell 15% from May 2022 to May 2023" Why do you think that happened? Demand was less than supply or the prices they were asking for were outrageous or they built to many homes. Housing is a very tough area to analyze as a whole because of state rules regarding mortgages being assumable
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    It was just a bubble. Austin was the ultimate "meme stock" during the pandemic years. Austin has a lot of good things going for it, but between things like Musk, Joe Rogan, "crypto bros", tons of Silicon Valley decampers, it just got way over-hyped. One of the things Austin always had going for it was that it was a good value compared to bigger cities, but now that it's just about as expensive as those bigger cities, people are realizing the brutally hot summers, lack of easy access to mountains or oceans, relatively bland architecture and abysmal public transportation just make it overpriced.
- phmqk76 3y ago
  Maybe be a little less pedantic and engage in good faith - of course by "red hot" I meant that sellers can name their price, with sales still often going above asking in many regions across the US. Prices shot up like a rocket ship since the beginning of the pandemic, have been remarkably durable, and still continue to climb.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    OK, I'll be less pedantic. I think it's just flat out wrong. It was a red hot market about a year and a half ago. Prices were shooting up, and there was a frenzy of buying, with lots of people feeling FOMO for not buying a house. The situation now is completely different. Housing prices rarely, rarely go down without widespread unemployment because people are so loath to sell at a loss. So the situation is a bit odd right now it that so many people can't move because interest rates are so high, but unemployment is still low so people aren't forced to sell. The reason prices have stayed relatively flat is because for the small amount of inventory that has come on the market there's still little reason to sell at a loss. That's still the opposite of any definition of a hot market.

xnx 3y ago

Concur. Existing home sales are about as low as they've been in 30 years: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/existing-home-sales https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/existing-home-sal...

bob_theslob646 3y ago

It depends on the area. There are still areas in the United States where demand is still incredibly high, meaning homes sell above asking or 50+% more than 10 years ago An example includes areas outside of the NYC metro area. Sure they aren't get peak pandemic prices but they are still getting crazy amounts of money for a home that was worth 50% less 10 years ago.

turquoisevar 3y ago

> Edit: And rent control? Virtually every economist of all ideological stripes agrees that rent control is ultimately self defeating in the long term. And just look what happens with people that live in rent-controlled cities. Families hang on to those apartments like they're diamonds, and all it does is create a world of "haves vs. have nots", where it's like a big lottery to get a rent controlled apartment, but meanwhile you've disincentivized builders from building any new stock. That “unanimous” agreement is starting to change and outside the US there was never unanimity on the subject. As per usual it is an issue that has already been tackled by other nations but that we in the US insist is a “uniquely American” issue. In countries that have a constitutions that don’t read like a product of an eleventh hour scramble to finish a homework assignment, that is to say, most western countries, they’ve chosen to enshrine certain human rights in their constitution. Like the right to accessible housing. This serves as a mandate for the government to enable this. In most countries, although details can differ, this translates to strong tenant protections and market-wide rent control. Having those two points at the foundation will literally negate any argument raised against rent control in the US. If it’s market-wide then there are no haves and have nots, everyone is a have. Another argument that’s often thrown around is that landlords would stop investing in the upkeep of property, but in a society with strong tenant protections and market-wide rent control that prospect simply doesn’t exist. Why? Because the rent control is often based on a point system that sets the price and the tenant protections require a certain standard of living. If the property isn’t kept up the landlord will receive less rent, or hell, in egregious cases no rent at all. You’ll see that with that stick behind the door, all of a sudden the landlord is perfectly capable to keep their properties up to par. Another thing that’s thrown around often is that there wouldn’t be any incentive to build more housing. Never mind the fact that in those countries this notion that the sky will come falling down has yet to come to fruition, it’s often the very same American real estate investment companies that are warning for the end of times here in the US if tenant protections and rent control will be passed, that are building and buying up rental properties over there. In fact, the same issue here, conglomeration of big corporate landlords, is becoming an issue there. Often these corporations are American and lately also Chinese. So it seems that landlords there still have a huge appetite, despite the strong tenant protections, strong tenant unions and strong rent control, all of which are even far beyond what is proposed here in the US. Because the real fact of the matter is, that as long as profit can be made, however small, people will still try to make that profit and not, like you and others are suggesting, just call it quits. This is because it simply depends on what is “normal” and in the US we need a new “normal” like the one on those other countries. And let’s be clear, that “normal” is still nothing to sneeze at, this despite the cost of construction being significantly higher in many of those countries as well as the corporate taxes that are involved. What we need in the US is more willingness to look at our peers and see how they’ve handled certain issues. But the main problem is the lack of political will, across the spectrum, to actually deal with these issues, because of corporate money being pumped around into political pockets. Which is a topic for another time I suppose.