4 ms·

> I see what you mean about the potential for abuse - maybe Big Money would buy all the houses and run small businesses from them? But regulations or taxes coul

> I see what you mean about the potential for abuse - maybe Big Money would buy all the houses and run small businesses from them? But regulations or taxes could be used to dissuade them. Theoretically, anyways. This isn't actually possible because owning a lot of houses is not a good business. That's why almost all landlords are small-time and not corporate. Houses are depreciating assets, so if you own more of them it's just more chances you'll have to pay for a roof replacement. In particular in Japan, houses are worth less than nothing and you may have to pay to demolish yours if you sell it! (Less true than it used to be because construction quality has gotten a lot better.)

throwaway2037 1y ago
I am not here to nit pick about this post, but this made me think: > owning a lot of houses is not a good business Generally, I agree. What do you think makes commercial (office) buildings different? Probably 90% are owned by insurance companies, private equity, and pension funds. My guess: Scale matters. Also, maybe I am blinded by big cities, but second tier cities and below might have lots of small fry landlords that own one or two small commercial buildings
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  Office buildings are different because companies have more money and lower standards (for acceptable density) than residents.
- astrange 1y ago
  I'm not sure, but I know everything about CRE is totally different from residential. Office buildings are generally larger, and the tenants are more professional and more likely to pay for maintenance themselves.
pjc50 1y ago
> Houses are depreciating assets .. which sit on top of the ultimate appreciating asset: land. > That's why almost all landlords are small-time and not corporate. https://wustllawreview.org/2023/12/27/corporate-consolidation-of-rental-housing-the-case-for-national-rent-stabilization/ https://wustllawreview.org/2023/12/27/corporate-consolidatio... "Ownership of the nation’s rental housing stock is in transition. The approximately twenty million rental properties in the United States, and fifty million rental units within those properties, have been steadily shifting from individual to corporate hands". Rent is profitable and the housing shortage is difficult to solve.
- astrange 1y ago
  Almost no single-family houses in the US are rental properties. That's talking about apartments. > Rent is profitable and the housing shortage is difficult to solve. If a home is being rented out it's not contributing to the housing shortage though.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    Missing the point. As long as an area has a shortage of housing rentals will likely remain a good investment. That said I have to disagree that the housing shortage is difficult to solve, at least in a technical sense. It's due almost entirely to poor urban planning and infrastructure management. The problem is entirely political. Then again, political issues can be some of the most difficult to make progress on so perhaps I agree after all.

throwaway2037 1y ago

I am not here to nit pick about this post, but this made me think: > owning a lot of houses is not a good business Generally, I agree. What do you think makes commercial (office) buildings different? Probably 90% are owned by insurance companies, private equity, and pension funds. My guess: Scale matters. Also, maybe I am blinded by big cities, but second tier cities and below might have lots of small fry landlords that own one or two small commercial buildings

BobaFloutist 1y ago
Office buildings are different because companies have more money and lower standards (for acceptable density) than residents.
astrange 1y ago
I'm not sure, but I know everything about CRE is totally different from residential. Office buildings are generally larger, and the tenants are more professional and more likely to pay for maintenance themselves.

pjc50 1y ago

> Houses are depreciating assets .. which sit on top of the ultimate appreciating asset: land. > That's why almost all landlords are small-time and not corporate. https://wustllawreview.org/2023/12/27/corporate-consolidation-of-rental-housing-the-case-for-national-rent-stabilization/ https://wustllawreview.org/2023/12/27/corporate-consolidatio... "Ownership of the nation’s rental housing stock is in transition. The approximately twenty million rental properties in the United States, and fifty million rental units within those properties, have been steadily shifting from individual to corporate hands". Rent is profitable and the housing shortage is difficult to solve.

astrange 1y ago
Almost no single-family houses in the US are rental properties. That's talking about apartments. > Rent is profitable and the housing shortage is difficult to solve. If a home is being rented out it's not contributing to the housing shortage though.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  Missing the point. As long as an area has a shortage of housing rentals will likely remain a good investment. That said I have to disagree that the housing shortage is difficult to solve, at least in a technical sense. It's due almost entirely to poor urban planning and infrastructure management. The problem is entirely political. Then again, political issues can be some of the most difficult to make progress on so perhaps I agree after all.