6 ms·

> Rents jumped 30.4% nationwide between 2019 and 2023 I don't understand how this isn't a major national emergency. The fact that your average voter cares more

> Rents jumped 30.4% nationwide between 2019 and 2023 I don't understand how this isn't a major national emergency. The fact that your average voter cares more about, say, immigration, than this problem is absolutely ludicrous

idontpost 2y ago
[dead]
kjkjadksj 2y ago
The powers that be would rather you quibble over inconsequential immigration than notice the other hand reaching into your wallet. It’s just that simple.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > powers that be would rather you quibble over inconsequential immigration Those powers being two thirds of Americans [1]. (And a greater fraction of voters [2].) It's tempting to blame a conspiracy. But at least the housing cost side of the equation is quite obviously a policy choice in much of the country. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_St... [2] https://www.route-fifty.com/management/2022/08/problem-homeowners-being-more-likely-vote/376521/ https://www.route-fifty.com/management/2022/08/problem-homeo...
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Why are you citing homeownership stats? I saw fox news on tv in public recently. The headline cited “millions of migrants overwhelming border.” These are the powers that be who I am referring to. The powers who craft those unhinged headlines and also stand to benefit in some way by entrenching those headlines into the formative minds of their dedicated political base.
mensetmanusman 2y ago
They are related, millions of more unplanned civilians dramatically increases rent and reduces supply. At least that has been the case in Canada.
- jobs_throwaway 2y ago
  How do immigrants reduce supply? They're destroying homes when they get here? edit: why am I being downvoted for pointing out a flaw in the premise I'm responding to?
  - Kye 2y ago
    More likely building them. It's zoning policy that makes sure those homes are overpriced, oversized, and out of reach of most people looking to transition into home ownership.
  - coolsunglasses 2y ago
    Higher demand leads to higher prices and doesn't lead to anything become net-net cheaper. That's a supply-side thing entirely and usually requires a massive regulatory or technological change. Super high gasoline production today doesn't change the fact that it was so cheap in the past they would burn it off to get rid of it.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    Supply of available places to rent…
  - bachmeier 2y ago
    > why am I being downvoted for pointing out a flaw in the premise I'm responding to? This is not a good look for HN, but that's what you get in just about any discussion of economics on here. You're 100% correct, and the post you're responding to makes a statement that's at odds with everything we know about economics, with no elaboration.
lend000 2y ago
Homeowners still make up the majority of voters by a pretty significant margin [0]. And one could argue that immigration is related, which is a serious problem in Canada, whereas there are much better solutions than curbing immigration in the US (increasing supply). [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/184902/homeownership-rate-in-the-us-since-2003/#:~:text=The%20homeownership%20rate%20in%20the,and%20decimated%20the%20housing%20market https://www.statista.com/statistics/184902/homeownership-rat....
maxsilver 2y ago
It is a major national emergency, but average voters don't care about it, because almost no politician is willing to address it -- there's no one to vote for, who would try to fix it. Even politicians who are struggling with this specific issue themselves refuse to address it. (Members of Congress struggling to afford to maintain housing on $174k salaries, would rather petition for more money, than to make housing more affordable)
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Old voters vote for old politicians who represent old voter interests. Old voters don’t care about rent, most of them own their home. https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/126b90d/oc_us_home_ownership_rates_by_age/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/126b90d/oc... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40338619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40338619 https://www.ted.com/talks/scott_galloway_how_the_us_is_destroying_young_people_s_future https://www.ted.com/talks/scott_galloway_how_the_us_is_destr... It's 18 minutes and 37 seconds of your time. I encourage you to watch it. The answer to the question Professor Galloway asks (I won't spoil it) is a resounding "no", based on policy decisions being made. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/30/house-gets-younger-senate-gets-older-a-look-at-the-age-and-generation-of-lawmakers-in-the-118th-congress/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/30/house-get... > The median age of voting House lawmakers is 57.9 years, down from 58.9 in the 117th Congress (2021-22), 58.0 in the 116th (2019-20) and 58.4 in the 115th (2017-18). The new Senate’s median age, on the other hand, is 65.3 years, up from 64.8 in the 117th Congress, 63.6 in the 116th and 62.4 in the 115th. So we are left with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle#Formulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle#Formulati... and whatever window of time that looks like. 1.8M voters over the age of 55 age out every year, extrapolate accordingly to predict progress trajectory.
  - jobs_throwaway 2y ago
    Very good read (I read the transcript rather than watch) > 60 percent of the cost of building a home goes to permits Is an incredible indictment of our system
lotsofpulp 2y ago
The "average" person that votes for national politicians (specifically those from swing states) are likely not being impacted by higher rents. In fact, a significant majority of the voters (and non voters by not voting) themselves are likely responsible for voting for local government leaders that intentionally reduce supply of housing. The root cause being that once someone is on track to owning property or already owns property, they are then incentivized to not want those below them on the socioeconomic ladder near them.
fdasfdasfd 2y ago
This is a complete misunderstanding of supply and demand. Immigration reduces the housing supply which causes rents to jump.
- jobs_throwaway 2y ago
  how does immigration reduce housing supply? Say a country has 10 homes and 10 citizens. Then 2 people immigrate there. How has supply decreased?
  - pandaman 2y ago
    Provided 10 citizens occupied all 10 houses the supply was 0 and remained 0 so it could not decrease even more since there is no negative supply. But if any of the houses had been for rent then immigrants moving into them decreased the supply of houses for rent, pretty straightforward.
    - HDThoreaun 2y ago
      Supply = number of units being rented or available for rent. Demand = number of people trying to rent. Youve got supply and demand backwards.
      - pandaman 2y ago
        No, supply in this case is the number of units available for rent, units being rented are unavailable on the market. Same as real estate market, when they talk about housing supply they don't count houses that are already sold. In economics, supply is the amount of a resource that firms, producers, labourers, providers of financial assets, or other economic agents are willing and able to provide to the marketplace or to an individual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_(economics)
throwaway22032 2y ago
In the UK, hilariously we've gone the other way by ramping up regulations on landlords to the extent that tons are simply exiting the market. To name a few: making evictions much harder; changing tax law so that mortgage interest isn't fully allowable; aggressive energy efficiency requirements that I don't even see as worth it as an owner occupier; HMO regulations preventing students etc sharing a house; the list goes on. All of this at a time in which mortgage interest rates (generally only fixed for a few years in the UK) have quadrupled and net immigration is going gangbusters. There is a pervasive mindset that landlords should be "punished". Well, they have been, and the result is that they're leaving the market - if you can't afford to buy, you're now competing against far more people in a supply restricted market. Poverty mindset at its' finest.
- baggy_trough 2y ago
  California is similar. Its progressive caucus does everything possible to make it risky and expensive to be a landlord, then acts puzzled when rents go up and tenants have a hard time finding a place.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    Yea, they're disincentivizing the wrong thing. It should be difficult and expensive to own multiple properties, regardless of whether or not you are renting them out. And it should be progressively (quadratically) more difficult and expensive to own the next property, the more properties you already own. That's the evil here: Single entities owning hundreds of properties for the purpose of value extraction rather than to live in.
    - throwaway22032 2y ago
      You're falling into the same trap. Doing that would mean indirectly that renting out properties should be disincentivised. Do that and the market price for rentals will increase as no-one wants to do it. The only rentals on the market will then be people who temporarily move, until they sell up, but even that will dry up as they won't be able to find anywhere to rent on the other side. You don't want a world in which renting is twice (or more) as expensive as buying.
disambiguation 2y ago
demographics. 1/3 of households rent. 2/3 of people under 35 rent. https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/renters-vs-homeowners-statistics https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/renters-vs-homeowne...

idontpost 2y ago

[dead]

kjkjadksj 2y ago

The powers that be would rather you quibble over inconsequential immigration than notice the other hand reaching into your wallet. It’s just that simple.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> powers that be would rather you quibble over inconsequential immigration Those powers being two thirds of Americans [1]. (And a greater fraction of voters [2].) It's tempting to blame a conspiracy. But at least the housing cost side of the equation is quite obviously a policy choice in much of the country. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_St... [2] https://www.route-fifty.com/management/2022/08/problem-homeowners-being-more-likely-vote/376521/ https://www.route-fifty.com/management/2022/08/problem-homeo...
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Why are you citing homeownership stats? I saw fox news on tv in public recently. The headline cited “millions of migrants overwhelming border.” These are the powers that be who I am referring to. The powers who craft those unhinged headlines and also stand to benefit in some way by entrenching those headlines into the formative minds of their dedicated political base.

mensetmanusman 2y ago

They are related, millions of more unplanned civilians dramatically increases rent and reduces supply. At least that has been the case in Canada.

jobs_throwaway 2y ago
How do immigrants reduce supply? They're destroying homes when they get here? edit: why am I being downvoted for pointing out a flaw in the premise I'm responding to?
- Kye 2y ago
  More likely building them. It's zoning policy that makes sure those homes are overpriced, oversized, and out of reach of most people looking to transition into home ownership.
- coolsunglasses 2y ago
  Higher demand leads to higher prices and doesn't lead to anything become net-net cheaper. That's a supply-side thing entirely and usually requires a massive regulatory or technological change. Super high gasoline production today doesn't change the fact that it was so cheap in the past they would burn it off to get rid of it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  Supply of available places to rent…
- bachmeier 2y ago
  > why am I being downvoted for pointing out a flaw in the premise I'm responding to? This is not a good look for HN, but that's what you get in just about any discussion of economics on here. You're 100% correct, and the post you're responding to makes a statement that's at odds with everything we know about economics, with no elaboration.

lend000 2y ago

Homeowners still make up the majority of voters by a pretty significant margin [0]. And one could argue that immigration is related, which is a serious problem in Canada, whereas there are much better solutions than curbing immigration in the US (increasing supply). [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/184902/homeownership-rate-in-the-us-since-2003/#:~:text=The%20homeownership%20rate%20in%20the,and%20decimated%20the%20housing%20market https://www.statista.com/statistics/184902/homeownership-rat....

maxsilver 2y ago

It is a major national emergency, but average voters don't care about it, because almost no politician is willing to address it -- there's no one to vote for, who would try to fix it. Even politicians who are struggling with this specific issue themselves refuse to address it. (Members of Congress struggling to afford to maintain housing on $174k salaries, would rather petition for more money, than to make housing more affordable)

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Old voters vote for old politicians who represent old voter interests. Old voters don’t care about rent, most of them own their home. https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/126b90d/oc_us_home_ownership_rates_by_age/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/126b90d/oc... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40338619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40338619 https://www.ted.com/talks/scott_galloway_how_the_us_is_destroying_young_people_s_future https://www.ted.com/talks/scott_galloway_how_the_us_is_destr... It's 18 minutes and 37 seconds of your time. I encourage you to watch it. The answer to the question Professor Galloway asks (I won't spoil it) is a resounding "no", based on policy decisions being made. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/30/house-gets-younger-senate-gets-older-a-look-at-the-age-and-generation-of-lawmakers-in-the-118th-congress/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/30/house-get... > The median age of voting House lawmakers is 57.9 years, down from 58.9 in the 117th Congress (2021-22), 58.0 in the 116th (2019-20) and 58.4 in the 115th (2017-18). The new Senate’s median age, on the other hand, is 65.3 years, up from 64.8 in the 117th Congress, 63.6 in the 116th and 62.4 in the 115th. So we are left with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle#Formulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle#Formulati... and whatever window of time that looks like. 1.8M voters over the age of 55 age out every year, extrapolate accordingly to predict progress trajectory.
- jobs_throwaway 2y ago
  Very good read (I read the transcript rather than watch) > 60 percent of the cost of building a home goes to permits Is an incredible indictment of our system

lotsofpulp 2y ago

The "average" person that votes for national politicians (specifically those from swing states) are likely not being impacted by higher rents. In fact, a significant majority of the voters (and non voters by not voting) themselves are likely responsible for voting for local government leaders that intentionally reduce supply of housing. The root cause being that once someone is on track to owning property or already owns property, they are then incentivized to not want those below them on the socioeconomic ladder near them.

fdasfdasfd 2y ago

This is a complete misunderstanding of supply and demand. Immigration reduces the housing supply which causes rents to jump.

jobs_throwaway 2y ago
how does immigration reduce housing supply? Say a country has 10 homes and 10 citizens. Then 2 people immigrate there. How has supply decreased?
- pandaman 2y ago
  Provided 10 citizens occupied all 10 houses the supply was 0 and remained 0 so it could not decrease even more since there is no negative supply. But if any of the houses had been for rent then immigrants moving into them decreased the supply of houses for rent, pretty straightforward.
  - HDThoreaun 2y ago
    Supply = number of units being rented or available for rent. Demand = number of people trying to rent. Youve got supply and demand backwards.
    - pandaman 2y ago
      No, supply in this case is the number of units available for rent, units being rented are unavailable on the market. Same as real estate market, when they talk about housing supply they don't count houses that are already sold. In economics, supply is the amount of a resource that firms, producers, labourers, providers of financial assets, or other economic agents are willing and able to provide to the marketplace or to an individual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_(economics)

throwaway22032 2y ago

In the UK, hilariously we've gone the other way by ramping up regulations on landlords to the extent that tons are simply exiting the market. To name a few: making evictions much harder; changing tax law so that mortgage interest isn't fully allowable; aggressive energy efficiency requirements that I don't even see as worth it as an owner occupier; HMO regulations preventing students etc sharing a house; the list goes on. All of this at a time in which mortgage interest rates (generally only fixed for a few years in the UK) have quadrupled and net immigration is going gangbusters. There is a pervasive mindset that landlords should be "punished". Well, they have been, and the result is that they're leaving the market - if you can't afford to buy, you're now competing against far more people in a supply restricted market. Poverty mindset at its' finest.

baggy_trough 2y ago
California is similar. Its progressive caucus does everything possible to make it risky and expensive to be a landlord, then acts puzzled when rents go up and tenants have a hard time finding a place.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  Yea, they're disincentivizing the wrong thing. It should be difficult and expensive to own multiple properties, regardless of whether or not you are renting them out. And it should be progressively (quadratically) more difficult and expensive to own the next property, the more properties you already own. That's the evil here: Single entities owning hundreds of properties for the purpose of value extraction rather than to live in.
  - throwaway22032 2y ago
    You're falling into the same trap. Doing that would mean indirectly that renting out properties should be disincentivised. Do that and the market price for rentals will increase as no-one wants to do it. The only rentals on the market will then be people who temporarily move, until they sell up, but even that will dry up as they won't be able to find anywhere to rent on the other side. You don't want a world in which renting is twice (or more) as expensive as buying.

disambiguation 2y ago

demographics. 1/3 of households rent. 2/3 of people under 35 rent. https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/renters-vs-homeowners-statistics https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/renters-vs-homeowne...