3 ms·
Why would they go down? Even with the people who have left, (legal) housing supply in San Francisco is still well under demand.
by crooked-v 3y ago
Why would they go down? Even with the people who have left, (legal) housing supply in San Francisco is still well under demand.
- threatofrain 3y agoI think it would go down if the people who were demanding it were less wealthy.
- Finnucane 3y agoJust this—if lots of people get laid off from high paying jobs and new hiring slows down, there’s not going to be enough money to support higher rents.
- thfuran 3y agoWell, if people left at a higher rate than people decided they wanted to arrive, the supply is now less insufficient to meet demand and so it is expected that prices would decrease.
- fny 3y agoIt doesn’t seem like you read the article? Rents are continuing to decline in SF.
- threatofrain 3y agoI don't think that's obvious per Redfin, but I may be wrong?
- darth_avocado 3y agoThe rent will not go down in SF, owners would rather sit the apartments empty than to rent at a discount to keep the prices high. Or they offer a few months off, so the annual rent is lower but the monthly rent is high. All to ensure the SF rents stay high in the long run.
- refurb 3y agoBut they have gone down. That’s the entire point of the article
- aetherson 3y agoI mean, this kind of behavior obviously doesn't work in the face of a durable new balance between supply and demand (lower demand or higher supply). Like, can you wait out a three month period of market uncertainty? Sure! But if, say, people actually do significantly shift the balance of population away from the Bay Area, all those kind of games do is leave you worse off, and neither the financial nor the moral resources of landlords to try to outwait lower demand is infinite.
- fooker 3y agoThere is a reason it's called 'real estate'. Barring a significant disaster, the land itself will have value enough to provide you shelter, and in most cases a decent living.
- aetherson 3y agoThis is a weird comment. The etymology of the phrase has little to do with the modern day. Does land in the Bay Area have a significant value? Certainly! But if there's a durable change in the supply/demand balance (which it's far from proven that there is), that value can become less (not zero, just less), and trying to finesse it back to its peak value just won't work if there is a significant durable change.
- fooker 3y agoIn the modern day this means that even in troubled times people with real estate would be better off than people without.
- aetherson 3y agoAgain, this is silly. I can't tell what kind of counterfactual you're even comparing to. Is person A who has a plot of real estate in a valuable location likely better off than person B who is exactly like person A, but has no real estate? Well, like... no duh, dude. Real estate has positive value, and nobody has ever suggested otherwise. Is person A who has a plot of real estate in a valuable location likely better off than person B who is exactly like person A, but instead they have a non-real estate asset that has the same nominal value as person A's real estate? Maybe, maybe not! It is not a law of nature that real estate outperforms other assets.