4 ms·

Are you an engineer? If so you should try to think about how to make it work, not about one downside. It’s pretty clear that treating housing as an investment

by baby 3y ago

Are you an engineer? If so you should try to think about how to make it work, not about one downside. It’s pretty clear that treating housing as an investment and not as a fundamental right has led us here. Unless you’re invested in real estate in which case your incentives are to keep the system in place.

Workaccount2 3y ago
Real estate should be an investment, it drives new construction, it just shouldn't have the ridiculous returns that it currently does.
- konschubert 3y ago
  It doesn't have high returns, except if you already own the land. We need to limit land value increases. A land value tax helps with that. Increasing supply by upzoning might help even more.
dfxm12 3y ago
Unless you’re invested in real estate in which case your incentives are to keep the system in place. That's the hard part. I imagine most homeowners are of the idea "I got mine, who cares about anyone else?" We see this line of thought in many parts of politics. Honestly, I'll take a bath on my home value if it means my kids, their friends, my niece, etc. get to secure housing. I don't care. Hell, I might find myself in a hard spot in the future and I don't want housing to be an issue. Housing is so important to one's dignity, ability to work/access some services and safety. There's no reason people should be collecting houses like baseball cards.
qwytw 3y ago
> It’s pretty clear that treating housing as an investment and not as a fundamental right has led us No, it's pretty clear that insufficient supply in certain areas has led us here. Treating housing as an investment is just a symptom (it's really unavoidable if the good is scarce).
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  Unfortunately treating housing as an investment means that we are incentivized to limit the supply. These are two sides of the same coin.
  - chung8123 3y ago
    If people are building enough supply around your land, your land will eventually not grow as fast or even go down in value. If all the demand is met by the apartments around your land why would anyone want to develop the land when there isn't return. If their isn't any potential for return why would someone else want to buy the land?
chung8123 3y ago
That is not clear to me at all. What I have learned from schooling is that this is a supply and demand problem and that if you want the price of housing to be less you need to either raise the supply or lower the demand. This conspiracy theory that people who own real estate are limiting supply so their investments go up is not reality. People indirectly want to limit supply because they enjoy their neighborhood the way it is. It turns out what they enjoy about their neighborhood others enjoy about the neighborhood so the price goes up. It doesn't mean that they are overall goal is to increase the value of their house. The evidence is that adding public transport and rezoning to higher densities and commercial use would increase the value of their property a lot but most oppose that because that is not why they bought in the neighborhood.

by baby 3y ago

Workaccount2 3y ago

Real estate should be an investment, it drives new construction, it just shouldn't have the ridiculous returns that it currently does.

konschubert 3y ago
It doesn't have high returns, except if you already own the land. We need to limit land value increases. A land value tax helps with that. Increasing supply by upzoning might help even more.

dfxm12 3y ago

Unless you’re invested in real estate in which case your incentives are to keep the system in place. That's the hard part. I imagine most homeowners are of the idea "I got mine, who cares about anyone else?" We see this line of thought in many parts of politics. Honestly, I'll take a bath on my home value if it means my kids, their friends, my niece, etc. get to secure housing. I don't care. Hell, I might find myself in a hard spot in the future and I don't want housing to be an issue. Housing is so important to one's dignity, ability to work/access some services and safety. There's no reason people should be collecting houses like baseball cards.

qwytw 3y ago

> It’s pretty clear that treating housing as an investment and not as a fundamental right has led us No, it's pretty clear that insufficient supply in certain areas has led us here. Treating housing as an investment is just a symptom (it's really unavoidable if the good is scarce).

amanaplanacanal 3y ago
Unfortunately treating housing as an investment means that we are incentivized to limit the supply. These are two sides of the same coin.
- chung8123 3y ago
  If people are building enough supply around your land, your land will eventually not grow as fast or even go down in value. If all the demand is met by the apartments around your land why would anyone want to develop the land when there isn't return. If their isn't any potential for return why would someone else want to buy the land?

chung8123 3y ago

That is not clear to me at all. What I have learned from schooling is that this is a supply and demand problem and that if you want the price of housing to be less you need to either raise the supply or lower the demand. This conspiracy theory that people who own real estate are limiting supply so their investments go up is not reality. People indirectly want to limit supply because they enjoy their neighborhood the way it is. It turns out what they enjoy about their neighborhood others enjoy about the neighborhood so the price goes up. It doesn't mean that they are overall goal is to increase the value of their house. The evidence is that adding public transport and rezoning to higher densities and commercial use would increase the value of their property a lot but most oppose that because that is not why they bought in the neighborhood.