6 ms·

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

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.
        aetherson 3y ago
        As it happens, I'm an officer of a family business that has a number of real estate investments (some residential, some commercial, some industrial). We've had the properties over a timeframe of decades -- in some cases like 10-20 years, in other cases 30-40. We're now selling them. Some of them have been basically good investments. Others have been iffy. You do of course accrue rents from them, but there are also costs. There is no law of nature that they outperform other investments.

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.
        aetherson 3y ago
        As it happens, I'm an officer of a family business that has a number of real estate investments (some residential, some commercial, some industrial). We've had the properties over a timeframe of decades -- in some cases like 10-20 years, in other cases 30-40. We're now selling them. Some of them have been basically good investments. Others have been iffy. You do of course accrue rents from them, but there are also costs. There is no law of nature that they outperform other investments.