9 ms·
That's not the problem at all. Stop allowing people to buy multiple homes. Stop allowing landlords to "collaborate" on prices.
by whoknowsidont 2y ago
That's not the problem at all.
Stop allowing people to buy multiple homes. Stop allowing landlords to "collaborate" on prices.
- erickf1 2y ago[flagged]
- daniel_iversen 2y agoIt could be as simple as removing or reducing tax incentives for property investment?
- shrewduser 2y agoSorry what? Shelter is a necessity for survival. Is it communism to not allow people to buy up all the water supplies and sell it back to you at an extortionate rate? The truth about the housing market is that it's not a free market anyway it's controlled by special interests, bad laws, zoning, local nimbys and councils the list goes on.
- immibis 2y agoYes, actually, that is communism and it's awesome.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoShelter is a necessity but lots of people think they’re entitled to live wherever they want at a price they can afford. They go to SF or NY and complain about rents when there is a whole country they can live in. I don’t think communities have to allow higher density and the lower quality of life that comes with it. Desirable places are going to be expensive and that’s okay. Personally I think if we have better rail, people can live in a wider range of places but still access jobs. You see this in Europe, and it lets smaller communities keep their way of life.
- pishpash 2y agoLots of employers think they're entitled to in-office days when remote work suffices. Argument would be stronger if there were a whole country to do all work in.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoThere is available work in many places. But I do think many want to only do certain kinds of jobs, get paid a certain amount, and live wherever they want. That feels more like entitlement to me. For example many college educated adults look down on trade jobs and want a desk job in whatever field they studied in a coastal urban city. But that’s not reasonable.
- pishpash 2y agoNon sequitur. Read carefully, there isn't all work in all places. It's not about how much it pays. It's the demand to come to an office in "a coastal urban city" to work when the work can be completed elsewhere. It seems you not only want to deter people from living in desirable places, but also want to deter people from working in jobs they were trained for for no reason at all.
- sharma-arjun 2y agoThe causes of homelessness are a little more complex than that, at least in the US: https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/blog/vacancies-are-red-herring https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/blog/vacancies-are-red-herring
- srackey 2y ago[dead]
- YokoZar 2y agoHow come prices go down in the markets where supply increases? Are landlords being extra generous there to fool us?
- csallen 2y agoHow is restricting supply not a problem? The fewer houses there are to buy, the higher prices will get, because there are more people competing for less.
- beej71 2y agoIn my state, they're building new supply, the population has decreased, and housing prices have increased.
- shuckles 2y agoThese aren't incompatible. Household sizes are falling and number of homes is an input to population, so you can have residents moving out on net while prices increase due to the remaining residents being more wealthy. California is an entire state of ~40 million people where this happens: low and middle income families move out; high income families move in.
- davidw 2y agoBut household formation has increased, by a lot: https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2023/10/26/household-formation-in-oregon/ https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2023/10/26/household-form...
- beej71 2y agoWhich seems to imply that housing is not too expensive, if millennials are snatching them up...?
- csallen 2y agoYou're confusing increases in household formation with increases in homebuying. You can create a new household without buying a house. For example, if you live with your parents as a 22yo, you and your parents count as one household. If you then move out and into an apartment by yourself, you are now your own household. But you haven't bought a house. As millennials age, more of them will obviously move out from living with their parents, which means increasing household formation. In addition, you can expect homebuying to increase within a generation as that generation matures and earns more money. Of course millennials will be buying more houses when they're in their 30s than when they were in their 20s. That's to be expected. Something would be seriously wrong if that were not the case. But this doesn't automatically mean that housing is not expensive.
- bigyikes 2y agoWhat do you suppose happens to all of the people renting from landlords with multiple properties?
- s_dev 2y agoIt's a bit like when a big chain goes bankrupt - the profitable restaurants don't close another buyer comes in and takes over. Like Red Lobster and the staff in the profitable restaurants stay the same the renters stay in the same apartments or houses paying the same rent.
- screye 2y agoBoth are band aids for the real problem. Housing can't both be an investment and a basic need. You need to pick one or find an opinionated middle ground. If housing is an investment, then remove all protections and open up the supply. No height regulations, no minum parking regulations, no mandatory HOAs. No moratoriams or legal protections when loans default. If housing is a need, then regulate it like a limited resource. Ration it on the lower end. Ban hoarding (vacancies, empty plots). Limited access to repeat consumers. When the powerful talk about "finding balance", they usually mean having their cake (earn like an investment) and eat it too (protected like a need). IMO, Georgism strikes the best opinionated middleground of housing as an investment vs housing as a need. Grounding taxation in land's economic value regulates hoarding. Grounding the value of land in its economic outcomes makes it a transparent investment, rather than the cartelized asset that it is today. I'm personally opposed to too-much-regulation. It always ends up being a tool for the powerful. Rent control, Prop 13, affordable housing, stacks-of-paperwork and similar regulations always do more harm than good.
- shuckles 2y ago> Housing can't both be an investment and a basic need. Yes it can, and it was for large chunks of the 20th century. Imputed rent can have high yields and therefore imply good "investment" income for households with long term stable housing demand.
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoAnd for large chunks of the 20th century family farming fed the nation. Not sure what the 20th century has to do with the issue at hand.
- shuckles 2y agoMy theoretical point that high rental yields can imply houses are a good asset to own without price spirals stands regardless of time period. The 20th century is relevant because it had long periods of time where homes could be bought at high rental yields because there was lots of new construction in the USA.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago> Stop allowing landlords to "collaborate" on prices. lol. Yes, I remember at the 2022 landlords meeting we all decided to raise rents… because we never thought of that before!! Surely it has nothing to do with taxes and inflation, no, as a renter you should be shielded from that and we should pay it without passing it on!
- AlexandrB 2y agoYou're literally describing something that happened - with a fig leaf of "algorithm" to (unsuccessfully) try to keep things legal. https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-lawmakers-collusion https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-r...
- SV_BubbleTime 2y agoThat sure seems like an article written to rile people up who want to be riled up. Let’s use simple reason here… If there isn’t enough supply, rates will go up, coordination or not. If there is no supply issue, landlords who conspire to raise rents will be immediately undercut by those that do not. Article makes allegations, and nothing came of them. It’s not illegal to call and ask prices. Prices that they’re “agreeing on” were all what people were paying.
- _gabe_ 2y agoIs the FTC unbiased enough for you?[0]. This is a real problem. Many landlords use the same software to determine how much to charge, this software is intended to maximize rent by fixing the price. [0]: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fixing-algorithm-still-price-fixing https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fix...
- NoGravitas 2y agoOr Business Insider? https://www.businessinsider.com/apartment-rent-increases-landlords-antitrust-lawsuits-real-estate-software-realpage-2024-4?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/apartment-rent-increases-lan...
- jmrm 2y agoExactly. It's insane how there are "landlords" (companies or even hedge funds) with dozens of flats in Airbnb in Spanish cities. All the people and companies with some money in this country are buying those flats to rent them to tourists, and it's the most lucrative business someone can have as the expenses are minimum in comparison to the earnings. If they taxed heavily having more than 10 homes they weren't whole neighbourhoods of tourists in our cities, and those who born there would have some opportunity to rent or buy something there, instead of having to having really far and losing most direct social relations they had
- firstplacelast 2y agoWhy is the problem always rich people? They're going to do what they're going to do. The poors need to hold themselves accountable and stop working for unsustainable wages that can't get them even a small, run-down home. They continue to drive their own wages further and further down and make it that much harder for those that come after them. It's ridiculous that they expect other people to sacrifice when they won't sacrifice (unionize, strike, or just opt out) to make the world a better, more equal place. The wealthy will always try to squeeze everything out of the lower classes. If you accept unsustainable wages for your labor, you are part of the problem in devaluing labor (ie you are traffic). The working classes need to hold themselves accountable for the exploitation of their labor.
- mrkeen 2y ago> or just opt out They're working on it! See 'Figure 1' https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide
- PM_me_your_math 2y ago[dead]
- culopatin 2y agoIm ok with people owning multiple homes. I might not want to buy something in a place where I’ll live for 1 year. Or many other reasons to not want to own. HOWEVER, make it an inconvenience to have the place sit empty. No tax because they’ll just raise rent to cover the offset, but make it a law or just very bureaucratic and people will either choose to rent it out or sell it to someone that will use it.
- sgregnt 2y agoPeople buying multiple hones is a blessing - it makes building home cheaper (economy of scale) the problem is obly in the tweasted reality of abosolutly rampant regulation, the only problem is government and local regulation if you artificially restrict supply you don't have enough homes.
- physicsguy 2y agoIf all second home owners were forced to sell, that'd still only add 500k properties, and it would displace in other ways seeing as many of those are used as holiday lets. Given the Gov reckons 500k is the number of households needed to be built per year is 500k it'd be helpful but not a panacea.
- physicsguy 2y agoPeople's second homes are generally in locations near tourist hotspots. That causes it's own problems but it's not usually prime economic centres. Housing location is really important, not just the total number of vacant properties.