3 ms·

The 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

The 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 ago
But they have gone down. That’s the entire point of the article
aetherson 3y ago
I 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 ago
  There 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 ago
    This 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 ago
      In the modern day this means that even in troubled times people with real estate would be better off than people without.
      - aetherson 3y ago
        Again, 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.
        fooker 3y ago
        > It is not a law of nature that real estate outperforms other assets. It is, over long time windows. This is the core point I am making here.
        aetherson 3y ago
        And you're simply wrong. Go find out the price of any random lot near you over a long time period, if you don't believe me, and compare to index funds.
        fooker 3y ago
        That's not the comparison you have to make here. Instead consider : price of the lot + compounding (regular income from utilizing the lot + rent you would have otherwise paid) Nothing will come anywhere close.
        3y ago
apsec112 3y ago
The whole article is about the rent going down in SF. Adjusted for US-wide inflation, it's down 30% since late 2019.

refurb 3y ago

But they have gone down. That’s the entire point of the article

aetherson 3y ago

I 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 ago
There 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 ago
  This 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 ago
    In the modern day this means that even in troubled times people with real estate would be better off than people without.
    - aetherson 3y ago
      Again, 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.
      - fooker 3y ago
        > It is not a law of nature that real estate outperforms other assets. It is, over long time windows. This is the core point I am making here.
        aetherson 3y ago
        And you're simply wrong. Go find out the price of any random lot near you over a long time period, if you don't believe me, and compare to index funds.
        fooker 3y ago
        That's not the comparison you have to make here. Instead consider : price of the lot + compounding (regular income from utilizing the lot + rent you would have otherwise paid) Nothing will come anywhere close.
        3y ago

apsec112 3y ago

The whole article is about the rent going down in SF. Adjusted for US-wide inflation, it's down 30% since late 2019.