5 ms·

And yet 20% of the market being captured by those who already have a home, while so many go without one, indicates a shortcoming in our society’s ability to dis

And yet 20% of the market being captured by those who already have a home, while so many go without one, indicates a shortcoming in our society’s ability to distribute resources from those who don’t need them to those who do.

bpt3 1y ago
20% of CA residents are homeless? Citation please!
- esseph 1y ago
  That's not at all what they said.
  - bpt3 1y ago
    To spell it out, they seem to be completely ignoring that those rental properties are not vacant. Instead, they house people, just like they would if they were owner occupied.
    - esseph 1y ago
      20% of market capture does not cause homelessness, but there are many very valid arguments that treating housing as an investment isn't a stairway to ending homelessness.
      - bpt3 1y ago
        > 20% of market capture does not cause homelessness Right, which is why trying to link the two is misleading at best. > there are many valid arguments that treating housing as an investment isn't a stairway to ending homelessness Such as? We seem to agree that the existence of rental units isn't a cause of homelessness.
        esseph 1y ago
        Turbo Greed (acquire all the things) and lack of monopoly protection and enforcement. If we're going to tackle homeless, we have to remove systems that incentivize the collection of homes as a financial asset. Make more homes by one person or entity less desirable or simply undoable.
        bpt3 1y ago
        Turbo greed isn't a thing. And if you think there's a monopoly in residential real estate ownership, you have an absurdly broad definition of the term. Instead of trying to manipulate a market through yet another layer of regulation, you can just let builders build more.
        esseph 1y ago
        If turbo Greed isn't a thing, why do the 830+ billionaires in the United States control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population? And, why did we just give them a YUGE tax break? "Build more" is not an option, because the incentives don't align to solve the problem. The things getting built are built to capture margins and not to solve the housing problem. Need regulation.
        bpt3 1y ago
        You're missing the point, which is that adding a superlative in front of a concept you don't like doesn't make it more important or the problem more severe. And your reductionist take on wealth distribution isn't even worth discussing. Build more is the only option to actually fix the problem. The incentives could not be more aligned between home builders and home dwellers. Builders want to build, and there are dozens of them in all major metropolitan areas. Home dwellers want shelter. Sounds like an ideal situation to keep margins low. More regulation == more regulatory capture, which your kind supposedly doesn't like but you don't seem to be able to help yourself.
        esseph 1y ago
tptacek 1y ago
Renting a home out isn't "capturing" the house. Rental housing is a desirable product. Lots of people don't want to own, be locked into a particular house for years to offset transaction costs, and to own all the downside and maintenance risk of the property.
- cloverich 1y ago
  Consider soliciting the opinion of more renters. Plenty of us would happily purchase if prices were more reasonable. Renting out sfh should be rare, imho. The current situation needs many remedies and kicking out sfh as investment vehicles is a very low hanging fruit.
  - kasey_junk 1y ago
    Kicking out sfh as investment vehicles makes it harder to sell homes. This a) increases the risk to home buyers and b) makes owning inventory more expensive. Thats likely to make increasing supply untenable. This low hanging “remedy” is likely to exacerbate the supply issue, not help it.
    - cloverich 1y ago
      Demand would still outstrip supply, so by what mechanism would selling be difficult or risky? It would modestly reduce prices, making it less expensive for all regular home owners. That's a win for everyone but (sfh) investors.
      - kasey_junk 1y ago
        Home builders are “investors” in sfh. So out of the gate you’ve got a problem with making the regulations more complicated to navigate. For the people creating supply. Some of those homebuilders build because they can rent homes if they can’t be sold. Others build because they have large investors to sell to if necessary. All of them build with their financial models account for carry time, as carry costs are extremely important to their bottom line. If the average carry time goes up even a little bit (and it will because investors close faster) that can make whole developments untenable.

bpt3 1y ago

20% of CA residents are homeless? Citation please!

esseph 1y ago
That's not at all what they said.
- bpt3 1y ago
  To spell it out, they seem to be completely ignoring that those rental properties are not vacant. Instead, they house people, just like they would if they were owner occupied.
  - esseph 1y ago
    20% of market capture does not cause homelessness, but there are many very valid arguments that treating housing as an investment isn't a stairway to ending homelessness.
    - bpt3 1y ago
      > 20% of market capture does not cause homelessness Right, which is why trying to link the two is misleading at best. > there are many valid arguments that treating housing as an investment isn't a stairway to ending homelessness Such as? We seem to agree that the existence of rental units isn't a cause of homelessness.
      - esseph 1y ago
        Turbo Greed (acquire all the things) and lack of monopoly protection and enforcement. If we're going to tackle homeless, we have to remove systems that incentivize the collection of homes as a financial asset. Make more homes by one person or entity less desirable or simply undoable.
        bpt3 1y ago
        Turbo greed isn't a thing. And if you think there's a monopoly in residential real estate ownership, you have an absurdly broad definition of the term. Instead of trying to manipulate a market through yet another layer of regulation, you can just let builders build more.
        esseph 1y ago
        If turbo Greed isn't a thing, why do the 830+ billionaires in the United States control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population? And, why did we just give them a YUGE tax break? "Build more" is not an option, because the incentives don't align to solve the problem. The things getting built are built to capture margins and not to solve the housing problem. Need regulation.
        bpt3 1y ago
        You're missing the point, which is that adding a superlative in front of a concept you don't like doesn't make it more important or the problem more severe. And your reductionist take on wealth distribution isn't even worth discussing. Build more is the only option to actually fix the problem. The incentives could not be more aligned between home builders and home dwellers. Builders want to build, and there are dozens of them in all major metropolitan areas. Home dwellers want shelter. Sounds like an ideal situation to keep margins low. More regulation == more regulatory capture, which your kind supposedly doesn't like but you don't seem to be able to help yourself.
        esseph 1y ago

tptacek 1y ago

Renting a home out isn't "capturing" the house. Rental housing is a desirable product. Lots of people don't want to own, be locked into a particular house for years to offset transaction costs, and to own all the downside and maintenance risk of the property.

cloverich 1y ago
Consider soliciting the opinion of more renters. Plenty of us would happily purchase if prices were more reasonable. Renting out sfh should be rare, imho. The current situation needs many remedies and kicking out sfh as investment vehicles is a very low hanging fruit.
- kasey_junk 1y ago
  Kicking out sfh as investment vehicles makes it harder to sell homes. This a) increases the risk to home buyers and b) makes owning inventory more expensive. Thats likely to make increasing supply untenable. This low hanging “remedy” is likely to exacerbate the supply issue, not help it.
  - cloverich 1y ago
    Demand would still outstrip supply, so by what mechanism would selling be difficult or risky? It would modestly reduce prices, making it less expensive for all regular home owners. That's a win for everyone but (sfh) investors.
    - kasey_junk 1y ago
      Home builders are “investors” in sfh. So out of the gate you’ve got a problem with making the regulations more complicated to navigate. For the people creating supply. Some of those homebuilders build because they can rent homes if they can’t be sold. Others build because they have large investors to sell to if necessary. All of them build with their financial models account for carry time, as carry costs are extremely important to their bottom line. If the average carry time goes up even a little bit (and it will because investors close faster) that can make whole developments untenable.