5 ms·

is it so insane, in a world of disparity and outsized influence of CEOs and billionaires, where people cannot afford houses? maybe the insane thing was how for

is it so insane, in a world of disparity and outsized influence of CEOs and billionaires, where people cannot afford houses? maybe the insane thing was how for hundreds of years we let the rich dictate the rules as if they knew better for having taken advantage of others.

talldatethrow 2y ago
People can absolutely afford houses. They can so easily afford houses that they buy them quickly, often for over asking. If people couldn't afford houses, they would sit unsold until sellers lowered the price to a price someone could afford. Luckily so many people can afford houses in most areas they don't have to do that.
- sofixa 2y ago
  You're confusing some entities, often private equity or similar corporations buying assets, often to rent, sometimes just to park, being able to buy, and the general public being able to afford to buy. In many desirable metro areas, you need two high incomes (two people in tech or lawyers or finance) to be able to afford to buy anything. What about everyone else?
  - throwaway4pp24 2y ago
    Why does everyone else need to live in a desirable metro area? That sounds infeasible with so few of them. If there was more desirable metro areas, the prices of those few wouldn't be so high.
    - timschmidt 2y ago
      > Why does everyone else need to live in a desirable metro area? Jobs, mostly. Along with increased access to all the things people like, like food, other people, activities, etc.
    - sofixa 2y ago
      > Why does everyone else need to live in a desirable metro area Because if nothing else (and there is a lot of else) the tech/lawyer/finance folks want to have restaurants, shops, cinemas, street cleaners, utilities etc etc etc etc
      - blackhawkC17 2y ago
        Then they should be ready to pay higher rents for it, because everyone else also wants the same thing.
  - ffgjgf1 2y ago
    > often private equity or similar corporations buying assets What proportion of housing do they own? I would assume it’s pretty small if still significant.
    - mjamesaustin 2y ago
      Huge percentage nowadays. Lately private equity is making 30-40% of all single family home purchases in the US. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/15/in-shift-44-of-all-single-family-home-purchases-we/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/15/in-shift-44...
- superb_dev 2y ago
  Some people, and a lot of private investment.
  - talldatethrow 2y ago
    Apparently there are more people with money than there are houses. So don't tell me people cant afford houses. Tell me that there are so few houses that they are overpriced or something, and only the top 25% can buy them.
- makeitshine 2y ago
  It has become out of reach for an increasing number of people all around the world. Look at the ratios of price to annual salaries and many have risen a lot. US: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/home-price-income-ratio-reaches-record-high-0 https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/home-price-income-ratio-re... > If people couldn't afford houses, they would sit unsold until sellers lowered the price to a price someone could afford. This is fundamentally not the case in much of China and Taiwan where the wealthy sit on empty homes for years or decades. The housing price in Taipei continues to climb while a large number of units sit vacant.
germandiago 2y ago
I see. And you keep looking at billionaires instead of regulations or the things that make it possible, like housing regulations (talking Europe now, Idk America well enough). If you really set the market more free, you will automatically have more reasonably wealthy people bc of competition. When thede few billionaires exist due to governments favors we should think what is wrong with some people selling favors to others without providing services to others. If you start regulation after regulation you create an elite of people and normal people suffering those regulations. The elites are basically, in this setup, a collusion of sellers of favors (politicians favoring employers) and people who buy those to avoid competition and favor their business. This is not possible by definition if you see that with bad eyes and watch out permanently. However, people want more and more regulation bc there are always things that are "wrong" and eventually those things take you exactly to the outcomes you complain about right now. But you want more of it. Guess what you are going to have if you ask more of it: more of that. There is a sentence from Javier Milei that I think is very correct regarding this matter: "the politician cannot sell you a favor he does not have for selling". Think of it. We cannot reduce all problems to that sentece but there is a very big part of truth in it. I recommend you to take a look at the profiles of billionaires there are around the world. Some are very different to others. But the more regulations you have in a country, especially the ones that did not develop first, the less wealth transfer you have and the more money stay in the same people's hands. This is something to think about very seriously: the path to derregulation is a better choice to keep things balanced. If you choose the other way, no matter how good it looks to you, you will get what you are asking for. Basically, "The great taking". Look for that book if you do not know it yet.
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  Free markets almost never can survive longterm without (sometimes extensive) regulation. Historically there might have been a few exceptions to that, but basically always you have a few good years and then the winner(s) who emerges starts abusing their position (even without any regulation that might make it easier for them to do that). Unregulated markets tend to be inherently unstable. And it’s not so much less vs more regulation, there are two axis and yes corrupt and inefficient governments tend to produce regulation that decrease competitiveness, productivity, fairness etc. And then you have industries which simply can’t be allowed to be privately owned unless there is extensive regulation (because free competition is almost impossible in those sectors): utilities, banking, transportation etc. sometimes even telecom (e.g. roaming fees in the EU).
daedrdev 2y ago
The housing crisis is caused by government policy voted in by locals who dont want their neibhorhoods ti change so block new housing that would lower prices. Which can just as easily happen in a Socialist country since I assume there is still democracy and people havent somehow changed to not be NIMBYS

talldatethrow 2y ago

People can absolutely afford houses. They can so easily afford houses that they buy them quickly, often for over asking. If people couldn't afford houses, they would sit unsold until sellers lowered the price to a price someone could afford. Luckily so many people can afford houses in most areas they don't have to do that.

sofixa 2y ago
You're confusing some entities, often private equity or similar corporations buying assets, often to rent, sometimes just to park, being able to buy, and the general public being able to afford to buy. In many desirable metro areas, you need two high incomes (two people in tech or lawyers or finance) to be able to afford to buy anything. What about everyone else?
- throwaway4pp24 2y ago
  Why does everyone else need to live in a desirable metro area? That sounds infeasible with so few of them. If there was more desirable metro areas, the prices of those few wouldn't be so high.
  - timschmidt 2y ago
    > Why does everyone else need to live in a desirable metro area? Jobs, mostly. Along with increased access to all the things people like, like food, other people, activities, etc.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    > Why does everyone else need to live in a desirable metro area Because if nothing else (and there is a lot of else) the tech/lawyer/finance folks want to have restaurants, shops, cinemas, street cleaners, utilities etc etc etc etc
    - blackhawkC17 2y ago
      Then they should be ready to pay higher rents for it, because everyone else also wants the same thing.
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  > often private equity or similar corporations buying assets What proportion of housing do they own? I would assume it’s pretty small if still significant.
  - mjamesaustin 2y ago
    Huge percentage nowadays. Lately private equity is making 30-40% of all single family home purchases in the US. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/15/in-shift-44-of-all-single-family-home-purchases-we/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/15/in-shift-44...
superb_dev 2y ago
Some people, and a lot of private investment.
- talldatethrow 2y ago
  Apparently there are more people with money than there are houses. So don't tell me people cant afford houses. Tell me that there are so few houses that they are overpriced or something, and only the top 25% can buy them.
makeitshine 2y ago
It has become out of reach for an increasing number of people all around the world. Look at the ratios of price to annual salaries and many have risen a lot. US: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/home-price-income-ratio-reaches-record-high-0 https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/home-price-income-ratio-re... > If people couldn't afford houses, they would sit unsold until sellers lowered the price to a price someone could afford. This is fundamentally not the case in much of China and Taiwan where the wealthy sit on empty homes for years or decades. The housing price in Taipei continues to climb while a large number of units sit vacant.

germandiago 2y ago

I see. And you keep looking at billionaires instead of regulations or the things that make it possible, like housing regulations (talking Europe now, Idk America well enough). If you really set the market more free, you will automatically have more reasonably wealthy people bc of competition. When thede few billionaires exist due to governments favors we should think what is wrong with some people selling favors to others without providing services to others. If you start regulation after regulation you create an elite of people and normal people suffering those regulations. The elites are basically, in this setup, a collusion of sellers of favors (politicians favoring employers) and people who buy those to avoid competition and favor their business. This is not possible by definition if you see that with bad eyes and watch out permanently. However, people want more and more regulation bc there are always things that are "wrong" and eventually those things take you exactly to the outcomes you complain about right now. But you want more of it. Guess what you are going to have if you ask more of it: more of that. There is a sentence from Javier Milei that I think is very correct regarding this matter: "the politician cannot sell you a favor he does not have for selling". Think of it. We cannot reduce all problems to that sentece but there is a very big part of truth in it. I recommend you to take a look at the profiles of billionaires there are around the world. Some are very different to others. But the more regulations you have in a country, especially the ones that did not develop first, the less wealth transfer you have and the more money stay in the same people's hands. This is something to think about very seriously: the path to derregulation is a better choice to keep things balanced. If you choose the other way, no matter how good it looks to you, you will get what you are asking for. Basically, "The great taking". Look for that book if you do not know it yet.

ffgjgf1 2y ago
Free markets almost never can survive longterm without (sometimes extensive) regulation. Historically there might have been a few exceptions to that, but basically always you have a few good years and then the winner(s) who emerges starts abusing their position (even without any regulation that might make it easier for them to do that). Unregulated markets tend to be inherently unstable. And it’s not so much less vs more regulation, there are two axis and yes corrupt and inefficient governments tend to produce regulation that decrease competitiveness, productivity, fairness etc. And then you have industries which simply can’t be allowed to be privately owned unless there is extensive regulation (because free competition is almost impossible in those sectors): utilities, banking, transportation etc. sometimes even telecom (e.g. roaming fees in the EU).

daedrdev 2y ago

The housing crisis is caused by government policy voted in by locals who dont want their neibhorhoods ti change so block new housing that would lower prices. Which can just as easily happen in a Socialist country since I assume there is still democracy and people havent somehow changed to not be NIMBYS