5 ms·

It's also caused by the idea that housing should be an asset to make someone else money, rather than solely a place in which a person/family can live. This lead

by buro9 2y ago

It's also caused by the idea that housing should be an asset to make someone else money, rather than solely a place in which a person/family can live. This leads to the AirBnB culture, the landlord culture, and compounds inequality whilst driving unaffordability. I'm sure the idea is abhorrent to the USA, but perhaps removing incentives to be a landlord at every step should be considered... mortgages should be punitive on second properties, taxes exorbitant for rented properties, insurance should be unavailable, etc. Housing should experience disintermediation, those in the housing should be the ones owning the housing. On this site my karma will suffer for saying this out loud, but a persons fundamental right to shelter, food, health... are just not valued in the US above someone else's right to profit from depriving some of shelter, food and health... at every level it's wrong, but yet capitalism seems to demand it.

miki123211 2y ago
To be honest, the opposite is also bad. Communist Poland had no landlords, all housing was built either by the state or by the people who wanted to live there, and apartments were basically impossible to get. If private parties have no incentives or possibilities to build, you're left with government housing, and governments are prone to overpaying and underdelivering. The only way to ensure a right to food and shelter is by ensuring that there's enough food and shelter to be had in the first place, something which we've seen socialist systems struggle with. The only way is to build, build, build, and when the population density demands it, build tall and build small. Apartment complexes with 5-20 floors are a far better and far cheaper idea than sprawling suburbs.
- AstralStorm 2y ago
  Sorry, but housing shortages were common actually due to lack of supply as thousands of people were moving from rural areas to the cities. It was not caused by lack of will to build houses, but lack of construction capacity. Over time, the problem lessened and ultimately by late 70s it was almost unheard of to find a homeless person in a city. Even people with serious problems like alcoholism were housed almost always. Unfortunately this resulted in lots of gray cheap blocks of flats. Looks drab. Over time also got improved. Homeless people are around again and number is on the rise, shortage is around again. Very expensive "apartments" that are tinier and worse made than communist housing are sold for barely attainable sums now. They just look better on the outside.
- lookatitsauce 2y ago
  If you look at home ownership data across Europe, the highest home ownership is in Eastern Europe, now... one can argue that culture has something to do with it but the numbers don't lie. I don't care what you call it capital/commune but if people can't afford homes, I don't think they care. The story doesn't matter if the effects are there. https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-rate-in-europe/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-ra...
- jq-r 2y ago
  As a counterexample, in socialist Yugoslavia, everyone and their dog got housing. Public companies made tons of it, towns and large part of cities were built during 60ties to 80ties. It was very easy to become the owner of a unit and most if not all became just that. It really wasn't a problem and people instead of worrying about housing thought about their hobbies, everyone on the coast bought/made boats, and people on the continent built summer houses on the coast. Come nineties, oughts and today and the huge majority of housing units made are for tourism and speculation and are just empty most of the year. Landlords appeared too, some of those accumulating wealth from renting/Airbnb'ing their previously built summer houses, a lot came from money laundering/extraction. Housing itself has very little if any taxation so it became a wealth store and its just a big circle of socially bad incentives. Usually when there is a big political arrest it would turn our that the person had like 20 houses/flats/boutique hotels. Nothing usually comes out of it, but thats a different problem. In the last 20 years the young people got totally screwed by lack of housing and many people emigrated unable to afford even to rent a flat and have some leftover money. Or to put it in the scale, more people emigrated than at any point in the last 150 years. People don't emigrate if they're fine with what they have. And politicians care even less because people who emigrated won't vote in the elections. And did I mention that most of them are landlords too? My point is, a political system be it "communism" (quoting you), "socialism", "democracy" or whatever has very little with how they deal with the problem. The reality is usually much more complex than applying easy labels.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
Penalizing landlords would lead to greater shortages and mass homelessness of would be renters. The houses simply would not be built. You can't have a right to housing without taking away the right to property. Renters are a Group that are already unprofitable to lend to, so banks would reject most and hike rates higher for the rest. Your proposal only makes sense if landlords provide no service, but this isnt true. Just like how a bank makes a % interest for taking risk and providing capital that owners wont, landlords do the same thing. Landlords get paid a profit to take on risk and long term liability (to the bank), and again provide capital. In short, banks loan cash to landlords because they are more credit worthy and take on liability. They in tern loan a home to renters, who have worse credit and much less liability. It is all about paying a premium for others to take financial risk.
- nurple 2y ago
  I'm sorry, but selling the landlord's literal rent seeking as a value to anyone but themselves is just blatant antisocial shilling.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Disagree. The economics are pretty simple. If someone has a job but no assets, how do you expect someone to pay builders and materials? If they could, they would be an owner, not a renter. If they were credit worthy, they would be an owner, not a renter. Renting is effectively a short term loan for the value of the house. Try getting a 12 month loan for $1M without collateral, and see what the interest rates are.
    - nurple 2y ago
      Just because something is simple doesn't mean it's not broken. If we didn't allow speculation in the housing market, that person probably _would_ be credit worthy enough for a reasonable priced home. The problem we're seeing in the housing "market" today isn't that people with no job or assets can afford a home, the problem is that prices have been inflated under speculation so much that we've passed the point where even a median earner can't afford a home.
gedy 2y ago
> I'm sure the idea is abhorrent to the USA, but perhaps removing incentives to be a landlord The problem is what will happen is that any US regulations around this will end up targetting middle-class “landlords” who rent out an extra home. And the real issue of huge corporate real estate holdings will be just fine. It’ll scratch the itch of people wanting to beat down someone in their neighborhood, "boomers", etc who rents out something due to petty envy, but unlikely to solve the issue meaningfully. A lot of average people buy real estate because it’s one of the few inflation hedges left for them.
- nurple 2y ago
  If so, it'll be a great first step and a powerful beachhead to fight from. Making homes into investments, even by you and me in the middle class, is the exact moral failing underlying our problems and creates a positive feedback loop that cannot be stopped. If it's true this is one of the only inflation hedges left, then that needs fixing, not the protecting of usury.
NovemberWhiskey 2y ago
>It's also caused by the idea that housing should be an asset to make someone else money, rather than solely a place in which a person/family can live. Same argument for food, basic clothing, healthcare, education, transportation, etc. right? There is an argument to be made for communism, but it's not got a great-looking track record.

by buro9 2y ago

miki123211 2y ago

To be honest, the opposite is also bad. Communist Poland had no landlords, all housing was built either by the state or by the people who wanted to live there, and apartments were basically impossible to get. If private parties have no incentives or possibilities to build, you're left with government housing, and governments are prone to overpaying and underdelivering. The only way to ensure a right to food and shelter is by ensuring that there's enough food and shelter to be had in the first place, something which we've seen socialist systems struggle with. The only way is to build, build, build, and when the population density demands it, build tall and build small. Apartment complexes with 5-20 floors are a far better and far cheaper idea than sprawling suburbs.

AstralStorm 2y ago
Sorry, but housing shortages were common actually due to lack of supply as thousands of people were moving from rural areas to the cities. It was not caused by lack of will to build houses, but lack of construction capacity. Over time, the problem lessened and ultimately by late 70s it was almost unheard of to find a homeless person in a city. Even people with serious problems like alcoholism were housed almost always. Unfortunately this resulted in lots of gray cheap blocks of flats. Looks drab. Over time also got improved. Homeless people are around again and number is on the rise, shortage is around again. Very expensive "apartments" that are tinier and worse made than communist housing are sold for barely attainable sums now. They just look better on the outside.
lookatitsauce 2y ago
If you look at home ownership data across Europe, the highest home ownership is in Eastern Europe, now... one can argue that culture has something to do with it but the numbers don't lie. I don't care what you call it capital/commune but if people can't afford homes, I don't think they care. The story doesn't matter if the effects are there. https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-rate-in-europe/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-ra...
jq-r 2y ago
As a counterexample, in socialist Yugoslavia, everyone and their dog got housing. Public companies made tons of it, towns and large part of cities were built during 60ties to 80ties. It was very easy to become the owner of a unit and most if not all became just that. It really wasn't a problem and people instead of worrying about housing thought about their hobbies, everyone on the coast bought/made boats, and people on the continent built summer houses on the coast. Come nineties, oughts and today and the huge majority of housing units made are for tourism and speculation and are just empty most of the year. Landlords appeared too, some of those accumulating wealth from renting/Airbnb'ing their previously built summer houses, a lot came from money laundering/extraction. Housing itself has very little if any taxation so it became a wealth store and its just a big circle of socially bad incentives. Usually when there is a big political arrest it would turn our that the person had like 20 houses/flats/boutique hotels. Nothing usually comes out of it, but thats a different problem. In the last 20 years the young people got totally screwed by lack of housing and many people emigrated unable to afford even to rent a flat and have some leftover money. Or to put it in the scale, more people emigrated than at any point in the last 150 years. People don't emigrate if they're fine with what they have. And politicians care even less because people who emigrated won't vote in the elections. And did I mention that most of them are landlords too? My point is, a political system be it "communism" (quoting you), "socialism", "democracy" or whatever has very little with how they deal with the problem. The reality is usually much more complex than applying easy labels.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Penalizing landlords would lead to greater shortages and mass homelessness of would be renters. The houses simply would not be built. You can't have a right to housing without taking away the right to property. Renters are a Group that are already unprofitable to lend to, so banks would reject most and hike rates higher for the rest. Your proposal only makes sense if landlords provide no service, but this isnt true. Just like how a bank makes a % interest for taking risk and providing capital that owners wont, landlords do the same thing. Landlords get paid a profit to take on risk and long term liability (to the bank), and again provide capital. In short, banks loan cash to landlords because they are more credit worthy and take on liability. They in tern loan a home to renters, who have worse credit and much less liability. It is all about paying a premium for others to take financial risk.

nurple 2y ago
I'm sorry, but selling the landlord's literal rent seeking as a value to anyone but themselves is just blatant antisocial shilling.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Disagree. The economics are pretty simple. If someone has a job but no assets, how do you expect someone to pay builders and materials? If they could, they would be an owner, not a renter. If they were credit worthy, they would be an owner, not a renter. Renting is effectively a short term loan for the value of the house. Try getting a 12 month loan for $1M without collateral, and see what the interest rates are.
  - nurple 2y ago
    Just because something is simple doesn't mean it's not broken. If we didn't allow speculation in the housing market, that person probably _would_ be credit worthy enough for a reasonable priced home. The problem we're seeing in the housing "market" today isn't that people with no job or assets can afford a home, the problem is that prices have been inflated under speculation so much that we've passed the point where even a median earner can't afford a home.

gedy 2y ago

> I'm sure the idea is abhorrent to the USA, but perhaps removing incentives to be a landlord The problem is what will happen is that any US regulations around this will end up targetting middle-class “landlords” who rent out an extra home. And the real issue of huge corporate real estate holdings will be just fine. It’ll scratch the itch of people wanting to beat down someone in their neighborhood, "boomers", etc who rents out something due to petty envy, but unlikely to solve the issue meaningfully. A lot of average people buy real estate because it’s one of the few inflation hedges left for them.

nurple 2y ago
If so, it'll be a great first step and a powerful beachhead to fight from. Making homes into investments, even by you and me in the middle class, is the exact moral failing underlying our problems and creates a positive feedback loop that cannot be stopped. If it's true this is one of the only inflation hedges left, then that needs fixing, not the protecting of usury.

NovemberWhiskey 2y ago

>It's also caused by the idea that housing should be an asset to make someone else money, rather than solely a place in which a person/family can live. Same argument for food, basic clothing, healthcare, education, transportation, etc. right? There is an argument to be made for communism, but it's not got a great-looking track record.