3 ms·

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 oppos

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.

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.