5 ms·

Even if this goes through without a mountain of loopholes and exceptions, I doubt it will have a significant impact. "Wall Street Investors" implies they're tar

by Aurornis 10mo ago

Even if this goes through without a mountain of loopholes and exceptions, I doubt it will have a significant impact. "Wall Street Investors" implies they're targeting large institutional ownership, which is only around 0.5% of housing ownership as cited in the article. That number is also flat-ish or maybe decreasing depending on the chart you look at, from what I recall. Outside of a few metro areas where institutional ownership is very high, I don't think this would change anything. As long as houses remain an attractive investment, non-institutional smaller investors will happily buy the properties for a few thousand dollars less than the institutions would. Anyone familiar with basic economics is pulling their hair out reading this, because there's one extremely obvious way to lower the price of building new housing: Reducing or eliminating tariffs on construction equipment and materials and ensuring a robust supply of low-cost labor.

danielfoster 10mo ago
Encouraging the creation of new housing is the way to go. One thought— what percentage of new home purchases are made by large investors and is it growing? This seems like the most important metric to look at rather than existing ownership.
- toomuchtodo 10mo ago
  There are examples of entire subdivisions being built to order for private investors to rent out. It’s called “built to rent.” https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/commercial/build-to-rent-homes https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/commercial... Corporate ownership mapped: https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/other/who-owns-america-mapping-corporate-ownership-residential-land/ https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/other/who-owns-amer... https://storage.pardot.com/153411/17634993251KmjZ4d2/whoa_mapping_corp_ownership_report_rev.pdf https://storage.pardot.com/153411/17634993251KmjZ4d2/whoa_ma...
reactordev 10mo ago
The material costs are high too because of regulations that require specific lumber for framing etc. It’s more complex than just reducing tariffs and inviting cheap labor. It’s systemic red tape put in by the large builders to prevent anyone but them to be able to build. When they do build, it’s never to code. The code they themselves help write. Ryan Homes for example…
- Aurornis 10mo ago
  > The material costs are high too because of regulations that require specific lumber for framing etc. Having done some extensive remodeling and building work in recent years and going to great lengths to follow building codes, this just isn't it. The type of lumber you can use for most framing jobs isn't that special. Having walked through a number of new construction properties and seeing what passes code, I don't think relaxing lumber standards would be a good idea, nor buy us anything. When lumber, cabinetry, and other building products have tariffs in the range of 10-50%, you can't tell me that tariffs are not the primary problem driving costs up right now. There just isn't a secret stash of lesser grade lumber lying around that would also be perfectly good for building homes.
  - potato3732842 10mo ago
    Single and few number family residential and owner stuff gets all sorts of exemptions in just about every town's zoning code because if not the townsfolk would revolt. This is why everyone on the internet screeches "well I put up a deck and it wasn't so hard". Try and do a new build of literally any structure and get back to me. Or worse, a construction type that is not the regional default for whatever it is you're doing. Reality for new construction is way, way, way worse than homeowners think. Unless you know a guy, in which case it's all open doors and green lights because that's how local politics always is.
    - FireBeyond 10mo ago
      > Unless you know a guy, in which case it's all open doors and green lights because that's how local politics always is. LOL, in my city, which is the capital city of our state, the city planning committee and property developers are all friends. By which I don't mean "having a drink at a community event", I mean openly posting on social media about their families going on vacation together, "Loved our family spending the week at this airbnb with the X family! So many good times and memories!"
      - potato3732842 10mo ago
londons_explore 10mo ago
Making it hard for cities to deny all permission to build new housing through impossible zoning laws should also be on the cards.
- threecheese 10mo ago
  Making this decision as a politician in this country is death to your career though; how could we incentivize our leaders to bite the hand that elects them?
  - londons_explore 10mo ago
    If your local mayor decides to allow a tower block to be built next to your house, you might be pissed. But if the president says 'we're gonna take away mayors powers to restrict housebuilding', you won't be pissed yet.... And when a builder comes along to build later it'll be too late.
    - p_j_w 10mo ago
      The president doesn’t have this power, or shouldn’t according to a sane reading of the Constitution. This needs to be a state level action.
- unyttigfjelltol 10mo ago
  Yeah, all the politicians talking housing— the actual net governmental effect on housing is to massively constrain supply (quantity) in service of rather arbitrary qualitative standards. I’m all for “the building shouldn’t spontaneously collapse” standards, but … two acre lots? Restrictions on casting shadows? Accessory dwelling units? Nah. If the government wants to make a difference it should ban Euclidian zoning as it currently is practiced, full stop.
  - londons_explore 10mo ago
    "We expect all states to expand housing supply by 2% per year. States which fail to meet this standard will pay $1000 per unbuilt house per year, as a subtraction from other federal funding. States may trade house building with other states to achieve this.".
mc32 10mo ago
Not sure. But I’ve been hearing of this being an issue from both progressives, leftists as well as conservatives and rightists. Maybe they’re all misinformed by their bubbles, but there seems to be some smoke…
- Aurornis 10mo ago
  It's a populist issue because it sounds vaguely correct and being angry at Wall Street is ever popular. That's also why this idea is being floated before the mid terms. That doesn't make it correct.
- epistasis 10mo ago
  It's because of emotionally charged response. Leftists largely don't want corporations owning houses, because it's "impure" and capitalist. Rightists largely don't want renters to live in homes that used to be exclusionary on the basis of being able to buy a home. Though there's crossover on the reasons, of course.
  - kelipso 10mo ago
    Honestly, the argument on the other side seems like emotionally charged arguments due to TDS and not wanting to give Trump any credit. It seems obvious to most people that institutional investors should not be allowed near single family homes and you would need quite a strong argument to persuade otherwise.
    - epistasis 10mo ago
      Which side is TDS and why? I've heard both of these opinions expressed quite freely over the past few years, without any association with Trump. However, most instances of TDS seem to not "derangement" but "normal human emotion to me." > It seems obvious to most people that institutional investors should not be allowed near single family homes What is obvious about this? They have always invested in single family homes. Can you provide a priniciple or rationale? If it's something other than renters or "corporations bad but I won't explain further" then I'd love to hear it!
1980phipsi 10mo ago
> Anyone familiar with basic economics is pulling their hair out reading this, because there's one extremely obvious way to lower the price of building new housing: Reducing or eliminating tariffs on construction equipment and materials and ensuring a robust supply of low-cost labor. And just in general reducing the restrictions on building in places with high rent to income ratios.
stocksinsmocks 10mo ago
The tariffs are a bit of a new phenomenon so I think that may be motivated reasoning. Construction productivity has also been stagnant for about 60 years. I think the most important factor is that housing prices, in the United States at least, are governed by how much a bank will lend. Very small but affordable houses will never be built because a bank will not finance a $10,000 loan over 30 years. In the same vein, it’s technically feasible for automobiles to be built for just a few thousand dollars, but, again, they will not finance $2500 over five years. So cars and houses are just built to the price point which will satisfy the lenders. You may not hate financialization nearly as much as it deserves.
- ksherlock 10mo ago
  $2,500 cars? $10,000 houses? I found the time traveler from 1960!
- psunavy03 10mo ago
  Source that cars are buildable for a few thousand dollars to the existing laws? Even the Slate truck is $25,000 because safety features are required.
- Aurornis 10mo ago
  > The tariffs are a bit of a new phenomenon so I think that may be motivated reasoning. Construction productivity has also been stagnant for about 60 years. If construction was stagnant for 60 years, adding 10-50% tariffs on lumber and building materials would only make it worse. Not motivated reasoning, just basic economics. The new tariffs went into effect January 1st, by the way. If you thought things were bad now, they're about to get worse. This announcement is just another distraction. They want you mad at Wall St, not tariffs. > In the same vein, it’s technically feasible for automobiles to be built for just a few thousand dollars, No it's not. If this was true you'd see it in some other countries. It's not happening anywhere in the world. Unless you redefine automobile to mean a tiny cart with a 5HP motor and some seats.
  - newtonsmethod 10mo ago
    The claim they went into effect January 1 simply does not seem true. The finished products tariff was delayed: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/01/business/trump-furniture-tariff-delay-intl-hnk https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/01/business/trump-furniture-... For unfinished lumber, I don't think there was any tariff going into effect January 1. Sure, these tariffs may further increase the house of prices (e.g. be relevant to 15% of the cost of the house, with tariffs ranging from 20% to 50% and sources of materials adjusting to these tariffs), but the say 4% future effect of these tariffs is likely less than the effect of zoning laws, other development restrictions, and rent freezing.
lotsoweiners 10mo ago
Even if it is only 0.5% I would prefer that large institutional investment firms not be allowed into the housing market.
- vasilipupkin 10mo ago
  actually, they are actively beneficial owners. They can do things more efficiently than small time owners.
  - Fritatta 10mo ago
    More efficiently extract cash from renters
  - cmxch 10mo ago
    Only if you consider their more efficient ability of pumping the renter for cash and dumping the renter with an arbitrary rent increase.
01100011 10mo ago
This is pretty far down in the list of consequences we should be thinking about but building more housing in desirable, coastal areas of the US will only serve to exacerbate the political and cultural divide between the two Americas. I know we all hate on the electoral college, but it exists and it isn't going away anytime soon. I'm not saying the answer is to force folks to move to "flyover country", but that's what you'd do if you wanted to avoid another presidential victory by a trump-like character.
- buellerbueller 10mo ago
  It's also what you'd do if you wanted to buy an inexpensive house and have a low cost of living.
- sigwinch 10mo ago
  “Built to rent” lately occurs in the sun belt and Midwest, in which fall most of the swing states.
tbrownaw 10mo ago
> because there's one extremely obvious way to lower the price of building new housing: Reducing or eliminating tariffs on construction equipment and materials and ensuring a robust supply of low-cost labor. Oh I thought the one extremely obvious way was to fix local policy roadblocks. After all, it's not like a lacking supply of housing is a new issue they suddenly appeared out of nowhere within the last dozen months.
- Aurornis 10mo ago
  > After all, it's not like a lacking supply of housing is a new issue they suddenly appeared out of nowhere within the last dozen months. The main lumber and building materials tariffs went into effect January 1st 2026. If you thought the current situation was bad, it's only going to get worse. This announcement is a distraction to get people blaming Wall Street. It's a "look over there!" announcement literally days after they raised tariffs to make a bad situation worse.
  - newtonsmethod 10mo ago
    I think you're getting your facts wrong: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/01/business/trump-furniture-tariff-delay-intl-hnk https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/01/business/trump-furniture-... "President Donald Trump has delayed new tariff increases on upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets, and vanities for a year, pushing their implementation to 2027, according to a White House statement."
    - Aurornis 10mo ago
      You're right, I probably got some of the increases delayed. But those are increases on top of the already high tariffs.
      - newtonsmethod 10mo ago
        I agree with you, they'll probably worsen the effect, and I assume this is maybe 5% in the long run from all these tariffs (if they're not cancelled).
newtonsmethod 10mo ago
I agree with the first half of what you posted, but immediately jumping to blaming tariffs in your last paragraph seems weak (and a slight attempt at a gotcha). Concrete, gypsum and steel are primarily domestically produced. Similar goes for wood (although a substantial amount is imported, e.g. from Canada - the tariffs range from 25% to 50%). Labour & Materials may make up say 60% of the cost of a house, but only 50% of this is likely materials, with likely a minority of the materials tariffed. What is likely to actually reduce rent and house prices is making development permission and laws more lax, as well as preventing rent control.
- Aurornis 10mo ago
  Tariffs on products like lumber and cabinetry were introduced or raise on January 1st of this year. It's an additional factor that will make a bad situation worse. You can't tell me that increasing the pricing of construction materials won't have negative pressure on home construction. > Materials may make up say 60% of the cost of a house, but only 50% of this is likely materials, with likely a minority of the materials tariffed. And where does the construction equipment come from? The parts to repair that construction equipment? The parts that go into the trucks that the workers drive to the job site? Focusing on a single input is myopic when the tariffs are so widespread that they touch everything.
  - newtonsmethod 10mo ago
    I have agreed tariffs will have an effect, but I'm not being myopic. Lot costs, builder profits, indirect labour (commissioning, financial and legal affairs, advertising) all are far less affected by tariffs. Machine costs could make up 15% of your "labour and material" cost but depreciation and repair purchases are still only 30% of this, with of course not all of this affected by tariffs. It seems wholly reasonable to believe that the long term effects of a tariff policy like these on housing costs could indeed be in the ballpark of 5%, as I claim, because in fact housing development is less affected by this. I'm not sure if you trust this for consensus, but you could try asking an AI to give an estimate of the long-term impact for you. Here's what Gemini 3 Pro said to "Estimate the increase Trump's current tariffs, if long term, would have on price of new housing developments." > Total Home Price Impact: This translates to a roughly 3% to 4% increase in the final purchase price for the consumer.
TZubiri 10mo ago
Anyone familiar with basic economics is pulling their hair out reading this, because there's one extremely obvious way to lower the price of building new housing: Reducing or eliminating tariffs on construction equipment and materials and ensuring a robust supply of low-cost labor. That's quite an extreme political take. A more humble basic economic theory question would be: If you ban large institutional investors from buying homes, and then you ban small institutional investors from buying homes. And only owners directly can buy homes, no renting. Would that be good? Sure homes would be cheap, but very shortly after that the supply of new housing would drop dramatically, as there's no one to finance building homes, maybe the ultra rich will just invest in their own mansions or yachts? Just very basic economics is the discussion here, not tariffs and china politics, but just a variant of the highschool/red-scare question of, "will anti-wealth laws have a positive effect on the economy"? in the past it was determined that no, and that you were a communist for suggesting it, but maybe there's a nuanced take like making a difference between some type of "institutional" investors and other types of investors?
- kelipso 10mo ago
  Why would you need institutions to finance building new homes? You think the cost of building a home is more than the cost of buying a home? (Obviously not.) Normal people have been building their own homes using their own money for thousands of years.
  - TZubiri 10mo ago
    > You think the cost of building a home is more than the cost of buying a home? (Obviously not.) Common misconception, I used to have this as well. Building is more expensive than buying for 2 reasons: 1- People can build custom houses to their taste, they pay a premium for that. 2- House prices fluctuate, most of the time house prices are below maximums, it's only during brief periods of time that building houses is suddenly bottlenecked by capital. Yes, there is an industry behind building houses. Sure people can build homes themselves, that's cheaper than both buying a home, and building a commercial home, but for homes that are both a commoditized asset with general appeal and a house to live in, it's a different type of asset. A house you build by yourself will never be worth much, but you'll live in it for sure. You can even spend a lot in improvements, but you end up with YOUR house, not with a resellable asset. FWIW, building your house is quite independent of market conditions, so if that's your game you shouldn't care about the macroeconomics of industrial residential construction or tariffs on China's iron.
SirFatty 10mo ago
Everything you stated is speculation.
- Aurornis 10mo ago
  Well as soon as you find someone who can speak about the future of the housing market without speculating, let me know.
johnnyanmac 10mo ago
Those "few metro areas" are on the scale of 10s of millions of houses. Remember that the top 10 largest cities have a third of the US population in it. >because there's one extremely obvious way to lower the price of building new housing: Cheaper housing doesn't mean that institutions won't still try to buy it up.
program_whiz 10mo ago
It seems like in some areas (the good ones) its much higher (12%): https://econofact.org/factbrief/do-private-equity-firms-own-20-of-single-family-homes https://econofact.org/factbrief/do-private-equity-firms-own-... It also seems like it might be important to determine what share of _new_ development is being created for investment. The share of existing homes being owned isn't as important. There's also the 2nd order effect. The price of property might go down if there weren't investors with tons of money to spend on a property.
- epistasis 10mo ago
  All housing is investment due to the way it's owned, regardless of who owns it. For most people, it's by far their biggest investment, resulting in extreme political activity. We must confront that fact, or negate it, for example by taxing away the investment opportunity. Investors buy housing to rent it out to others, that's the investment. People who own their own home implicitly pay themselves rent, by choosing to live in what they own versus renting instead. Getting non-resident owners out of housing only means that renters have been banned from an area.
  - program_whiz 10mo ago
    Isn't that circular reasoning? Charging rent means its an investment, but also just living in a home is "paying yourself". Is there any way to live on a property that isn't an investment (I suppose just staying there while the government owns it?).
    - epistasis 10mo ago
      No, as long as the housing is bought and sold and priced by the market it's always investment. Homeowners talk freely about how it's an investment, choose their own home for its investment properties. It's not circular it just is, under our ownership scheme. Adding a 100% land value tax does remove the investment characteristic, though, as it removes the speculative aspect of land, and in fact drives the price of land to $0.
cael450 10mo ago
Zoning laws are the number one obstacle to building housing. They need to be regulated into oblivion. Then we need to incentivize building dense housing.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
Alex2037 10mo ago
they don't even have affordable housing in the country all those tarriffed materials and equipment come from.

danielfoster 10mo ago

Encouraging the creation of new housing is the way to go. One thought— what percentage of new home purchases are made by large investors and is it growing? This seems like the most important metric to look at rather than existing ownership.

toomuchtodo 10mo ago
There are examples of entire subdivisions being built to order for private investors to rent out. It’s called “built to rent.” https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/commercial/build-to-rent-homes https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/commercial... Corporate ownership mapped: https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/other/who-owns-america-mapping-corporate-ownership-residential-land/ https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/other/who-owns-amer... https://storage.pardot.com/153411/17634993251KmjZ4d2/whoa_mapping_corp_ownership_report_rev.pdf https://storage.pardot.com/153411/17634993251KmjZ4d2/whoa_ma...

reactordev 10mo ago

The material costs are high too because of regulations that require specific lumber for framing etc. It’s more complex than just reducing tariffs and inviting cheap labor. It’s systemic red tape put in by the large builders to prevent anyone but them to be able to build. When they do build, it’s never to code. The code they themselves help write. Ryan Homes for example…

Aurornis 10mo ago
> The material costs are high too because of regulations that require specific lumber for framing etc. Having done some extensive remodeling and building work in recent years and going to great lengths to follow building codes, this just isn't it. The type of lumber you can use for most framing jobs isn't that special. Having walked through a number of new construction properties and seeing what passes code, I don't think relaxing lumber standards would be a good idea, nor buy us anything. When lumber, cabinetry, and other building products have tariffs in the range of 10-50%, you can't tell me that tariffs are not the primary problem driving costs up right now. There just isn't a secret stash of lesser grade lumber lying around that would also be perfectly good for building homes.
- potato3732842 10mo ago
  Single and few number family residential and owner stuff gets all sorts of exemptions in just about every town's zoning code because if not the townsfolk would revolt. This is why everyone on the internet screeches "well I put up a deck and it wasn't so hard". Try and do a new build of literally any structure and get back to me. Or worse, a construction type that is not the regional default for whatever it is you're doing. Reality for new construction is way, way, way worse than homeowners think. Unless you know a guy, in which case it's all open doors and green lights because that's how local politics always is.
  - FireBeyond 10mo ago
    > Unless you know a guy, in which case it's all open doors and green lights because that's how local politics always is. LOL, in my city, which is the capital city of our state, the city planning committee and property developers are all friends. By which I don't mean "having a drink at a community event", I mean openly posting on social media about their families going on vacation together, "Loved our family spending the week at this airbnb with the X family! So many good times and memories!"
    - potato3732842 10mo ago

londons_explore 10mo ago

Making it hard for cities to deny all permission to build new housing through impossible zoning laws should also be on the cards.

threecheese 10mo ago
Making this decision as a politician in this country is death to your career though; how could we incentivize our leaders to bite the hand that elects them?
- londons_explore 10mo ago
  If your local mayor decides to allow a tower block to be built next to your house, you might be pissed. But if the president says 'we're gonna take away mayors powers to restrict housebuilding', you won't be pissed yet.... And when a builder comes along to build later it'll be too late.
  - p_j_w 10mo ago
    The president doesn’t have this power, or shouldn’t according to a sane reading of the Constitution. This needs to be a state level action.
unyttigfjelltol 10mo ago
Yeah, all the politicians talking housing— the actual net governmental effect on housing is to massively constrain supply (quantity) in service of rather arbitrary qualitative standards. I’m all for “the building shouldn’t spontaneously collapse” standards, but … two acre lots? Restrictions on casting shadows? Accessory dwelling units? Nah. If the government wants to make a difference it should ban Euclidian zoning as it currently is practiced, full stop.
- londons_explore 10mo ago
  "We expect all states to expand housing supply by 2% per year. States which fail to meet this standard will pay $1000 per unbuilt house per year, as a subtraction from other federal funding. States may trade house building with other states to achieve this.".

mc32 10mo ago

Not sure. But I’ve been hearing of this being an issue from both progressives, leftists as well as conservatives and rightists. Maybe they’re all misinformed by their bubbles, but there seems to be some smoke…

Aurornis 10mo ago
It's a populist issue because it sounds vaguely correct and being angry at Wall Street is ever popular. That's also why this idea is being floated before the mid terms. That doesn't make it correct.
epistasis 10mo ago
It's because of emotionally charged response. Leftists largely don't want corporations owning houses, because it's "impure" and capitalist. Rightists largely don't want renters to live in homes that used to be exclusionary on the basis of being able to buy a home. Though there's crossover on the reasons, of course.
- kelipso 10mo ago
  Honestly, the argument on the other side seems like emotionally charged arguments due to TDS and not wanting to give Trump any credit. It seems obvious to most people that institutional investors should not be allowed near single family homes and you would need quite a strong argument to persuade otherwise.
  - epistasis 10mo ago
    Which side is TDS and why? I've heard both of these opinions expressed quite freely over the past few years, without any association with Trump. However, most instances of TDS seem to not "derangement" but "normal human emotion to me." > It seems obvious to most people that institutional investors should not be allowed near single family homes What is obvious about this? They have always invested in single family homes. Can you provide a priniciple or rationale? If it's something other than renters or "corporations bad but I won't explain further" then I'd love to hear it!

1980phipsi 10mo ago

> Anyone familiar with basic economics is pulling their hair out reading this, because there's one extremely obvious way to lower the price of building new housing: Reducing or eliminating tariffs on construction equipment and materials and ensuring a robust supply of low-cost labor. And just in general reducing the restrictions on building in places with high rent to income ratios.

stocksinsmocks 10mo ago

The tariffs are a bit of a new phenomenon so I think that may be motivated reasoning. Construction productivity has also been stagnant for about 60 years. I think the most important factor is that housing prices, in the United States at least, are governed by how much a bank will lend. Very small but affordable houses will never be built because a bank will not finance a $10,000 loan over 30 years. In the same vein, it’s technically feasible for automobiles to be built for just a few thousand dollars, but, again, they will not finance $2500 over five years. So cars and houses are just built to the price point which will satisfy the lenders. You may not hate financialization nearly as much as it deserves.

ksherlock 10mo ago
$2,500 cars? $10,000 houses? I found the time traveler from 1960!
psunavy03 10mo ago
Source that cars are buildable for a few thousand dollars to the existing laws? Even the Slate truck is $25,000 because safety features are required.
Aurornis 10mo ago
> The tariffs are a bit of a new phenomenon so I think that may be motivated reasoning. Construction productivity has also been stagnant for about 60 years. If construction was stagnant for 60 years, adding 10-50% tariffs on lumber and building materials would only make it worse. Not motivated reasoning, just basic economics. The new tariffs went into effect January 1st, by the way. If you thought things were bad now, they're about to get worse. This announcement is just another distraction. They want you mad at Wall St, not tariffs. > In the same vein, it’s technically feasible for automobiles to be built for just a few thousand dollars, No it's not. If this was true you'd see it in some other countries. It's not happening anywhere in the world. Unless you redefine automobile to mean a tiny cart with a 5HP motor and some seats.
- newtonsmethod 10mo ago
  The claim they went into effect January 1 simply does not seem true. The finished products tariff was delayed: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/01/business/trump-furniture-tariff-delay-intl-hnk https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/01/business/trump-furniture-... For unfinished lumber, I don't think there was any tariff going into effect January 1. Sure, these tariffs may further increase the house of prices (e.g. be relevant to 15% of the cost of the house, with tariffs ranging from 20% to 50% and sources of materials adjusting to these tariffs), but the say 4% future effect of these tariffs is likely less than the effect of zoning laws, other development restrictions, and rent freezing.

lotsoweiners 10mo ago

Even if it is only 0.5% I would prefer that large institutional investment firms not be allowed into the housing market.

vasilipupkin 10mo ago
actually, they are actively beneficial owners. They can do things more efficiently than small time owners.
- Fritatta 10mo ago
  More efficiently extract cash from renters
- cmxch 10mo ago
  Only if you consider their more efficient ability of pumping the renter for cash and dumping the renter with an arbitrary rent increase.

01100011 10mo ago

This is pretty far down in the list of consequences we should be thinking about but building more housing in desirable, coastal areas of the US will only serve to exacerbate the political and cultural divide between the two Americas. I know we all hate on the electoral college, but it exists and it isn't going away anytime soon. I'm not saying the answer is to force folks to move to "flyover country", but that's what you'd do if you wanted to avoid another presidential victory by a trump-like character.

buellerbueller 10mo ago
It's also what you'd do if you wanted to buy an inexpensive house and have a low cost of living.
sigwinch 10mo ago
“Built to rent” lately occurs in the sun belt and Midwest, in which fall most of the swing states.

tbrownaw 10mo ago

> because there's one extremely obvious way to lower the price of building new housing: Reducing or eliminating tariffs on construction equipment and materials and ensuring a robust supply of low-cost labor. Oh I thought the one extremely obvious way was to fix local policy roadblocks. After all, it's not like a lacking supply of housing is a new issue they suddenly appeared out of nowhere within the last dozen months.

Aurornis 10mo ago
> After all, it's not like a lacking supply of housing is a new issue they suddenly appeared out of nowhere within the last dozen months. The main lumber and building materials tariffs went into effect January 1st 2026. If you thought the current situation was bad, it's only going to get worse. This announcement is a distraction to get people blaming Wall Street. It's a "look over there!" announcement literally days after they raised tariffs to make a bad situation worse.
- newtonsmethod 10mo ago
  I think you're getting your facts wrong: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/01/business/trump-furniture-tariff-delay-intl-hnk https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/01/business/trump-furniture-... "President Donald Trump has delayed new tariff increases on upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets, and vanities for a year, pushing their implementation to 2027, according to a White House statement."
  - Aurornis 10mo ago
    You're right, I probably got some of the increases delayed. But those are increases on top of the already high tariffs.
    - newtonsmethod 10mo ago
      I agree with you, they'll probably worsen the effect, and I assume this is maybe 5% in the long run from all these tariffs (if they're not cancelled).

newtonsmethod 10mo ago

I agree with the first half of what you posted, but immediately jumping to blaming tariffs in your last paragraph seems weak (and a slight attempt at a gotcha). Concrete, gypsum and steel are primarily domestically produced. Similar goes for wood (although a substantial amount is imported, e.g. from Canada - the tariffs range from 25% to 50%). Labour & Materials may make up say 60% of the cost of a house, but only 50% of this is likely materials, with likely a minority of the materials tariffed. What is likely to actually reduce rent and house prices is making development permission and laws more lax, as well as preventing rent control.

Aurornis 10mo ago
Tariffs on products like lumber and cabinetry were introduced or raise on January 1st of this year. It's an additional factor that will make a bad situation worse. You can't tell me that increasing the pricing of construction materials won't have negative pressure on home construction. > Materials may make up say 60% of the cost of a house, but only 50% of this is likely materials, with likely a minority of the materials tariffed. And where does the construction equipment come from? The parts to repair that construction equipment? The parts that go into the trucks that the workers drive to the job site? Focusing on a single input is myopic when the tariffs are so widespread that they touch everything.
- newtonsmethod 10mo ago
  I have agreed tariffs will have an effect, but I'm not being myopic. Lot costs, builder profits, indirect labour (commissioning, financial and legal affairs, advertising) all are far less affected by tariffs. Machine costs could make up 15% of your "labour and material" cost but depreciation and repair purchases are still only 30% of this, with of course not all of this affected by tariffs. It seems wholly reasonable to believe that the long term effects of a tariff policy like these on housing costs could indeed be in the ballpark of 5%, as I claim, because in fact housing development is less affected by this. I'm not sure if you trust this for consensus, but you could try asking an AI to give an estimate of the long-term impact for you. Here's what Gemini 3 Pro said to "Estimate the increase Trump's current tariffs, if long term, would have on price of new housing developments." > Total Home Price Impact: This translates to a roughly 3% to 4% increase in the final purchase price for the consumer.

TZubiri 10mo ago

Anyone familiar with basic economics is pulling their hair out reading this, because there's one extremely obvious way to lower the price of building new housing: Reducing or eliminating tariffs on construction equipment and materials and ensuring a robust supply of low-cost labor. That's quite an extreme political take. A more humble basic economic theory question would be: If you ban large institutional investors from buying homes, and then you ban small institutional investors from buying homes. And only owners directly can buy homes, no renting. Would that be good? Sure homes would be cheap, but very shortly after that the supply of new housing would drop dramatically, as there's no one to finance building homes, maybe the ultra rich will just invest in their own mansions or yachts? Just very basic economics is the discussion here, not tariffs and china politics, but just a variant of the highschool/red-scare question of, "will anti-wealth laws have a positive effect on the economy"? in the past it was determined that no, and that you were a communist for suggesting it, but maybe there's a nuanced take like making a difference between some type of "institutional" investors and other types of investors?

kelipso 10mo ago
Why would you need institutions to finance building new homes? You think the cost of building a home is more than the cost of buying a home? (Obviously not.) Normal people have been building their own homes using their own money for thousands of years.
- TZubiri 10mo ago
  > You think the cost of building a home is more than the cost of buying a home? (Obviously not.) Common misconception, I used to have this as well. Building is more expensive than buying for 2 reasons: 1- People can build custom houses to their taste, they pay a premium for that. 2- House prices fluctuate, most of the time house prices are below maximums, it's only during brief periods of time that building houses is suddenly bottlenecked by capital. Yes, there is an industry behind building houses. Sure people can build homes themselves, that's cheaper than both buying a home, and building a commercial home, but for homes that are both a commoditized asset with general appeal and a house to live in, it's a different type of asset. A house you build by yourself will never be worth much, but you'll live in it for sure. You can even spend a lot in improvements, but you end up with YOUR house, not with a resellable asset. FWIW, building your house is quite independent of market conditions, so if that's your game you shouldn't care about the macroeconomics of industrial residential construction or tariffs on China's iron.

SirFatty 10mo ago

Everything you stated is speculation.

Aurornis 10mo ago
Well as soon as you find someone who can speak about the future of the housing market without speculating, let me know.

johnnyanmac 10mo ago

Those "few metro areas" are on the scale of 10s of millions of houses. Remember that the top 10 largest cities have a third of the US population in it. >because there's one extremely obvious way to lower the price of building new housing: Cheaper housing doesn't mean that institutions won't still try to buy it up.

program_whiz 10mo ago

It seems like in some areas (the good ones) its much higher (12%): https://econofact.org/factbrief/do-private-equity-firms-own-20-of-single-family-homes https://econofact.org/factbrief/do-private-equity-firms-own-... It also seems like it might be important to determine what share of _new_ development is being created for investment. The share of existing homes being owned isn't as important. There's also the 2nd order effect. The price of property might go down if there weren't investors with tons of money to spend on a property.

epistasis 10mo ago
All housing is investment due to the way it's owned, regardless of who owns it. For most people, it's by far their biggest investment, resulting in extreme political activity. We must confront that fact, or negate it, for example by taxing away the investment opportunity. Investors buy housing to rent it out to others, that's the investment. People who own their own home implicitly pay themselves rent, by choosing to live in what they own versus renting instead. Getting non-resident owners out of housing only means that renters have been banned from an area.
- program_whiz 10mo ago
  Isn't that circular reasoning? Charging rent means its an investment, but also just living in a home is "paying yourself". Is there any way to live on a property that isn't an investment (I suppose just staying there while the government owns it?).
  - epistasis 10mo ago
    No, as long as the housing is bought and sold and priced by the market it's always investment. Homeowners talk freely about how it's an investment, choose their own home for its investment properties. It's not circular it just is, under our ownership scheme. Adding a 100% land value tax does remove the investment characteristic, though, as it removes the speculative aspect of land, and in fact drives the price of land to $0.

cael450 10mo ago

Zoning laws are the number one obstacle to building housing. They need to be regulated into oblivion. Then we need to incentivize building dense housing.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

Alex2037 10mo ago

they don't even have affordable housing in the country all those tarriffed materials and equipment come from.