3 ms·

So home owners are to blame for the massively imbalanced housing supply/demand, and not the government who not just allowed but actively enabled that imbalance

So home owners are to blame for the massively imbalanced housing supply/demand, and not the government who not just allowed but actively enabled that imbalance to happen in the first place? Interesting thought process. So the local gas station owner is also to blame for the increase in gas price and destroying the community and not the global supply/demand, right? Also the local bread maker, etc.

carlosjobim 3y ago
Landlords do not raise their rents because their own costs increase, unlike a gas station or any other sector of the economy. Landlords put the rent as high as they can get away with and are then very happy if people blame other people for it, for example digital nomads. Home sellers equally sell their homes as expensive as they can and if the local work force can't afford a home then fuck them, they should move away or pay a land lord and stay broke. That's what most people think. But it's ridiculous to then blame the consequences on politicians or foreigners. Businesses on the other hand have their own costs that dictates what they have to charge to remain in business. And they go out of business if they can't balance that. A land lord never goes out of business. A home owner can abandon his real estate for decades without losing it. There's a huge difference to businesses. An example similar to real estate is natural resources, such as oil and gas. They generate enormous profit compared to investments and cost of operation. Some nations chose to let a few interests take those profits, some nations give their citizens cheap or free gas, some nations invest the profits into large funds and et cetera. There are different ways of doing things. Wherever you live right now, people did things differently in the past, especially when it comes to real estate.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >Landlords do not raise their rents because their own costs increase Their cost definitely increases if the property is on mortgage and their rates went up. Also cost in maintenance increase and taxes as well. All those increases for the landlord will directly go into the price of rent for the tenant. They also raise their prices because of supply/demand so someone comes and is willing to pay more. What are you gonna do, say no to more money? The private rental market is still a business and not a charity. Only the public housing is there to cater to the needs of the people and not for profit making. Have you voted for the construction of more public housing?
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    Operational costs for landlords are marginal. Many of them do little maintenance, many of them do no maintenance. In the situation where they're taking rent to pay a mortgage, then they are not the landlord, they are middlemen for the real landlord: the bank. The dynamic doesn't change. > What are you gonna do, say no to more money? Yes, sometimes you should do that if more money goes against your values. I've said no to more money a ton of times. I shouldn't be surprised, but I am surprised that hackers think that the thought is absurd. It's not being a "charity" to not squeeze as much as you can. When I had a physical business I went out of my way to employ young people from the local community. It never crossed my mind to do things differently, while some of my competitors were taking advantage of cheaper foreign labour. If the idea is to squeeze as much short term profit as possible, nothing is stopping you. But then don't turn around and blame the people who rented the apartments for a higher price. It was the landlords that increased their price. If I'm selling train tickets and then start cancelling the tickets that were already reserved so I could sell them for a greater profit to a foreigner, is it rational to blame the foreigner or me? People do as they please, but put the blame were it belongs and admit you did it for personal profit when the consequences come.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      Sorry I'm not buying your argument. You can spin this as you want, but landlords in the private market are free to charge as much as the market will bear. If the market bears crazy sums then is it the individual landlord at fault, or is the market itself for being broken, as in the supply of housing is too low "thanks" to government building regulations and the demand too high thanks again to government opening the flood gates on immigration? A couple of landlords here and there like you, charging below market rates, is not enough to fix the broken market created by the poorly though out government policies because you're not changing the supply/demand numbers. So again, is it the landlords at fault for the broken market, or is their pricing simply just a reaction to the broken market itself? /Rethorical question Here's a thought exercise: if there's 10 apartments available on the private market and 15 people wanting to move in due to the influx of immigrants, how do you decide who gets to move in and who gets left out if not by purchasing power? How do you decide to fairly split a limited resource like housing without going full communist and have the state own everything and the state decide who gets what? Here's the hard truth: If you're the government and you open the immigration floodgates then you'd better have buikt enough free housing available, or the immediate market reaction is gonna be increased rents for everyone. Simple. What you want is social housing, laxer building regulations, and tighter immigration regulations based on available housing.

carlosjobim 3y ago

Landlords do not raise their rents because their own costs increase, unlike a gas station or any other sector of the economy. Landlords put the rent as high as they can get away with and are then very happy if people blame other people for it, for example digital nomads. Home sellers equally sell their homes as expensive as they can and if the local work force can't afford a home then fuck them, they should move away or pay a land lord and stay broke. That's what most people think. But it's ridiculous to then blame the consequences on politicians or foreigners. Businesses on the other hand have their own costs that dictates what they have to charge to remain in business. And they go out of business if they can't balance that. A land lord never goes out of business. A home owner can abandon his real estate for decades without losing it. There's a huge difference to businesses. An example similar to real estate is natural resources, such as oil and gas. They generate enormous profit compared to investments and cost of operation. Some nations chose to let a few interests take those profits, some nations give their citizens cheap or free gas, some nations invest the profits into large funds and et cetera. There are different ways of doing things. Wherever you live right now, people did things differently in the past, especially when it comes to real estate.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>Landlords do not raise their rents because their own costs increase Their cost definitely increases if the property is on mortgage and their rates went up. Also cost in maintenance increase and taxes as well. All those increases for the landlord will directly go into the price of rent for the tenant. They also raise their prices because of supply/demand so someone comes and is willing to pay more. What are you gonna do, say no to more money? The private rental market is still a business and not a charity. Only the public housing is there to cater to the needs of the people and not for profit making. Have you voted for the construction of more public housing?
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  Operational costs for landlords are marginal. Many of them do little maintenance, many of them do no maintenance. In the situation where they're taking rent to pay a mortgage, then they are not the landlord, they are middlemen for the real landlord: the bank. The dynamic doesn't change. > What are you gonna do, say no to more money? Yes, sometimes you should do that if more money goes against your values. I've said no to more money a ton of times. I shouldn't be surprised, but I am surprised that hackers think that the thought is absurd. It's not being a "charity" to not squeeze as much as you can. When I had a physical business I went out of my way to employ young people from the local community. It never crossed my mind to do things differently, while some of my competitors were taking advantage of cheaper foreign labour. If the idea is to squeeze as much short term profit as possible, nothing is stopping you. But then don't turn around and blame the people who rented the apartments for a higher price. It was the landlords that increased their price. If I'm selling train tickets and then start cancelling the tickets that were already reserved so I could sell them for a greater profit to a foreigner, is it rational to blame the foreigner or me? People do as they please, but put the blame were it belongs and admit you did it for personal profit when the consequences come.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    Sorry I'm not buying your argument. You can spin this as you want, but landlords in the private market are free to charge as much as the market will bear. If the market bears crazy sums then is it the individual landlord at fault, or is the market itself for being broken, as in the supply of housing is too low "thanks" to government building regulations and the demand too high thanks again to government opening the flood gates on immigration? A couple of landlords here and there like you, charging below market rates, is not enough to fix the broken market created by the poorly though out government policies because you're not changing the supply/demand numbers. So again, is it the landlords at fault for the broken market, or is their pricing simply just a reaction to the broken market itself? /Rethorical question Here's a thought exercise: if there's 10 apartments available on the private market and 15 people wanting to move in due to the influx of immigrants, how do you decide who gets to move in and who gets left out if not by purchasing power? How do you decide to fairly split a limited resource like housing without going full communist and have the state own everything and the state decide who gets what? Here's the hard truth: If you're the government and you open the immigration floodgates then you'd better have buikt enough free housing available, or the immediate market reaction is gonna be increased rents for everyone. Simple. What you want is social housing, laxer building regulations, and tighter immigration regulations based on available housing.