2 ms·

That is a bad idea. It assumes the buying a house is something everybody must do. For some buying is a good idea, for some it is not. You have forced people wh

That is a bad idea. It assumes the buying a house is something everybody must do. For some buying is a good idea, for some it is not. You have forced people who should rent to buy anyway, or pay massive rent to cover that taxes the investor who owns their house must charge. > Removing the ability of Private equity to eat up all the local contractors to make a little mini-monopoly is also something that 100% needs to be done. There is no need because private equity has not done that, and there is not current reason to think they will. If they ever to get a monopoly then we need to do something about it, but right now there is no sign they are. Plenty of little builders exist who are competitive with the large builders in both price and quality. There are also enough large builders to be competitive even without the small builders.

altruios 1y ago
Not everyone needs a home, no, that is not the assumption. It does make the assumption that it's bad to buy twenty houses and live in only one while also opposing more housing contraction. 'Abolish rent' is still a good read. As far as private equity... look closer: it is happening. https://fieldrocket.us/private-equity-companies-are-buying-thousands-of-independent-contractors-out-heres-why-they-will-fail/ https://fieldrocket.us/private-equity-companies-are-buying-t... https://www.marketplace.org/story/2024/10/24/private-equity-buying-up-businesses-in-the-skilled-trades-hvac-plumbing-electrician https://www.marketplace.org/story/2024/10/24/private-equity-... There is EVERY reason to think that they would do this, besides the data showing that they are. The MO is to find an area, buy up all the local tiny contractors, and set prices higher and higher until those contractors finally fail, then sell off any and all assets for a profit. I am also making the assumption that you haven't tried or researched building a home in the last few years, based on your comment.
- bluGill 1y ago
  > There is EVERY reason to think that they would do this, besides the data showing that they are. The MO is to find an area, buy up all the local tiny contractors, and set prices higher and higher until those contractors finally fail, then sell off any and all assets for a profit. That is a goal that makes sense. However that goal has been around for a long time and nobody has been successful, and it is unlikely this current round will be. They can't buy up enough small players to make it work. Anybody can write a book that sounds good. I've read enough to not trust them. I need more authority than just someone wrote a book that ignores any factor that isn't convenient to their opinion. Note that I have not read that book, and yet I'm 100% confident that they did that - it is a pattern repeated far too often.
  - altruios 1y ago
    > They can't buy up enough small players to make it work. We just don't have the data to track that. KKR, Blackstone, and Bain Capital, all buy up small time contractors, as well as real estate. They absolutely have the money to bully their way using that strategy. We don't know for sure if that's what they are doing or not... but as you agree: That goal makes sense. > Anybody can write a book that sounds good. Not everyone can write a book both sound and logical, agreed. That is to say, a well researched book is rare indeed. It is biased, yes: it is very anti-landlord. It views a landlord as inherently extractive, and makes the case for that viewpoint. To say that the book is not worth reading is also incorrect. It has some fantastic insights unrelated to its anti-landlord bias and it is an interesting read. And yes: you shouldn't just trust what you read. Ever. Regardless of it's flaws, I still recommend it as a read.

altruios 1y ago

Not everyone needs a home, no, that is not the assumption. It does make the assumption that it's bad to buy twenty houses and live in only one while also opposing more housing contraction. 'Abolish rent' is still a good read. As far as private equity... look closer: it is happening. https://fieldrocket.us/private-equity-companies-are-buying-thousands-of-independent-contractors-out-heres-why-they-will-fail/ https://fieldrocket.us/private-equity-companies-are-buying-t... https://www.marketplace.org/story/2024/10/24/private-equity-buying-up-businesses-in-the-skilled-trades-hvac-plumbing-electrician https://www.marketplace.org/story/2024/10/24/private-equity-... There is EVERY reason to think that they would do this, besides the data showing that they are. The MO is to find an area, buy up all the local tiny contractors, and set prices higher and higher until those contractors finally fail, then sell off any and all assets for a profit. I am also making the assumption that you haven't tried or researched building a home in the last few years, based on your comment.

bluGill 1y ago
> There is EVERY reason to think that they would do this, besides the data showing that they are. The MO is to find an area, buy up all the local tiny contractors, and set prices higher and higher until those contractors finally fail, then sell off any and all assets for a profit. That is a goal that makes sense. However that goal has been around for a long time and nobody has been successful, and it is unlikely this current round will be. They can't buy up enough small players to make it work. Anybody can write a book that sounds good. I've read enough to not trust them. I need more authority than just someone wrote a book that ignores any factor that isn't convenient to their opinion. Note that I have not read that book, and yet I'm 100% confident that they did that - it is a pattern repeated far too often.
- altruios 1y ago
  > They can't buy up enough small players to make it work. We just don't have the data to track that. KKR, Blackstone, and Bain Capital, all buy up small time contractors, as well as real estate. They absolutely have the money to bully their way using that strategy. We don't know for sure if that's what they are doing or not... but as you agree: That goal makes sense. > Anybody can write a book that sounds good. Not everyone can write a book both sound and logical, agreed. That is to say, a well researched book is rare indeed. It is biased, yes: it is very anti-landlord. It views a landlord as inherently extractive, and makes the case for that viewpoint. To say that the book is not worth reading is also incorrect. It has some fantastic insights unrelated to its anti-landlord bias and it is an interesting read. And yes: you shouldn't just trust what you read. Ever. Regardless of it's flaws, I still recommend it as a read.