3 ms·

No not really. You just have to restrict the same investor from buying all the housing in an area, and prevent investors from colluding on rents.

tharmas 8mo ago
Investors add to demand for housing. This will help drive up prices. And no, builders will not necessarily increase supply if they can realise increased margin of profit due to increased demand. We see that with RAM manufacturers. RAM suppliers constrain supply to boost margins. Same with house builders. The difference is people can go without RAM but everyone needs a place to live.
- triceratops 8mo ago
  > Investors add to demand for housing And here I thought people who want to live in houses add to demand for housing. Investors buy houses that people want to live in. If people don't want to live someplace, you won't see any investors there either.
  - 9rx 8mo ago
    > And here I thought people who want to live in houses add to demand for housing. Desire is a necessary component in demand, but it also requires willingness at a given price point. If houses are selling for $1,000,000 and you only have $500,000 to spend, then no matter how much you dream every night about having a home, you are not a contributor to demand.
    - triceratops 8mo ago
      Counterpoint: houses sell for $1,000,000 because there are more people with $500,000 (and every other number less than $1,000,000) who want those houses than there are houses.
      - 9rx 8mo ago
        How is that a counterpoint? It says the same thing with different words.
        Dylan16807 8mo ago
        You said the person with 500k is not contributing to demand, they said the person with 500k is contributing to demand.
        9rx 8mo ago
        Said comment doesn't mention demand. However, it is true that supply and demand normally find equilibrium, which is the concept the comment was trying to describe. Which is the same concept I described. In simple terms, if you have 10 houses for sale (supply), then in a normally functioning market there will only be 10 people with the desire and willingness to buy them (demand). Many more may have the desire to own a home, but factors like price see their willingness disappear. There are two exceptions: - Surplus: When the price is too high and is unable to fall. Where supply exceeds demand. This manifests as there being houses trying to be sold, but that nobody wants to buy. - Shortage: When the price is too low and is unable to rise. Where demand exceeds supply. This manifests in non-price mechanisms taking over. You might, for example, see houses get sold via lottery as a potentially higher bidder is prevented (e.g. the government stepped in and started enforcing a price ceiling) from offering more. There may be some argument that there is a housing surplus in some markets, where houses are for sale but never find a willing buyer. However, it seems most houses eventually sell. There is likely no argument for there being a housing shortage by the technical definition. If you have unlimited money, you can surely buy any house on the market. There are always exceptions, but it is pretty safe to say that supply and demand are finding equilibrium in most housing markets.
  - greyface- 8mo ago
    1 house is built. Alice wants to own it to live in it. Bob wants to own it to rent it to Alice. 2 people want to own the house.
    - chii 8mo ago
      > 2 people want to own the house. and so how do you decide who gets it? 1) morally. Alice deserves it because her intention is more pure. 2) financially. Bob gets it, because he can pay more for it than alice. Which choice above you make as a policy direction is a reflection of your world view. I'm voting for 2), but i can understand the POV of 1), even tho i disagree with it.
      - hunterpayne 8mo ago
        You are entirely missing the point. The correct answer is to build 2 houses. The problem with these policies is that they artificially restrict demand. If they didn't do that, nobody would have a problem with them.
        chii 8mo ago
        > The correct answer is to build 2 houses the utopian answer is to build two houses. But we don't live in utopia. The constraints faced today is real (paper or physical). You can't wish it away, and you can't say it's "easier" to just build two houses.
    - triceratops 8mo ago
      So build 2 houses.
embedding-shape 8mo ago
Sounds easier to just outlaw investor from owning houses they don't live in themselves. Seems we can't really stop collusion, only real way to win there is to not make that possible in the first place.
- triceratops 8mo ago
  Then everyone is forced to buy a house to live in, no matter what their situation or desires are. Of course we can stop collusion. What are you even talking about?
  - embedding-shape 8mo ago
    > Then everyone is forced to buy a house to live in, no matter what their situation or desires are. Great! Now we're talking real solutions that can actually help people :) > Of course we can stop collusion. What are you even talking about? Besides laws and regulation (which already exists and clearly isn't enough), what is your suggested solution for stopping collusion? Price fixing is/was already illegal in the US (if I understand the Sherman Act correctly), yet the largest landlords in the US was found to engage in price-fixing and artificially raising rents. https://www.propublica.org/article/justice-department-sues-landlords-alleged-price-fixing-realpage-rent https://www.propublica.org/article/justice-department-sues-l...
    - triceratops 8mo ago
      That's not helpful at all. There are many, many situations where you don't want to own. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47434393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47434393 You're telling all these people "f** you"
      - embedding-shape 8mo ago
        I currently don't own, and I can't either, because I don't want to be stuck in one place for too long. If the prices where lower, where I could reliably buy, live for some years then sell again, without a huge amount of hassle, and not costing at least one million to buy some shitty apartment, then that'd be preferably. And besides just having "real estate investors" slurping up all housing, people could own one house then rent out parts of it, or a collection of people could own their apartment building together, there are many other ways to make housing work that doesn't involve huge companies owning large parts of the market. A little bit of nuance goes a long way.

tharmas 8mo ago

Investors add to demand for housing. This will help drive up prices. And no, builders will not necessarily increase supply if they can realise increased margin of profit due to increased demand. We see that with RAM manufacturers. RAM suppliers constrain supply to boost margins. Same with house builders. The difference is people can go without RAM but everyone needs a place to live.

triceratops 8mo ago
> Investors add to demand for housing And here I thought people who want to live in houses add to demand for housing. Investors buy houses that people want to live in. If people don't want to live someplace, you won't see any investors there either.
- 9rx 8mo ago
  > And here I thought people who want to live in houses add to demand for housing. Desire is a necessary component in demand, but it also requires willingness at a given price point. If houses are selling for $1,000,000 and you only have $500,000 to spend, then no matter how much you dream every night about having a home, you are not a contributor to demand.
  - triceratops 8mo ago
    Counterpoint: houses sell for $1,000,000 because there are more people with $500,000 (and every other number less than $1,000,000) who want those houses than there are houses.
    - 9rx 8mo ago
      How is that a counterpoint? It says the same thing with different words.
      - Dylan16807 8mo ago
        You said the person with 500k is not contributing to demand, they said the person with 500k is contributing to demand.
        9rx 8mo ago
        Said comment doesn't mention demand. However, it is true that supply and demand normally find equilibrium, which is the concept the comment was trying to describe. Which is the same concept I described. In simple terms, if you have 10 houses for sale (supply), then in a normally functioning market there will only be 10 people with the desire and willingness to buy them (demand). Many more may have the desire to own a home, but factors like price see their willingness disappear. There are two exceptions: - Surplus: When the price is too high and is unable to fall. Where supply exceeds demand. This manifests as there being houses trying to be sold, but that nobody wants to buy. - Shortage: When the price is too low and is unable to rise. Where demand exceeds supply. This manifests in non-price mechanisms taking over. You might, for example, see houses get sold via lottery as a potentially higher bidder is prevented (e.g. the government stepped in and started enforcing a price ceiling) from offering more. There may be some argument that there is a housing surplus in some markets, where houses are for sale but never find a willing buyer. However, it seems most houses eventually sell. There is likely no argument for there being a housing shortage by the technical definition. If you have unlimited money, you can surely buy any house on the market. There are always exceptions, but it is pretty safe to say that supply and demand are finding equilibrium in most housing markets.
- greyface- 8mo ago
  1 house is built. Alice wants to own it to live in it. Bob wants to own it to rent it to Alice. 2 people want to own the house.
  - chii 8mo ago
    > 2 people want to own the house. and so how do you decide who gets it? 1) morally. Alice deserves it because her intention is more pure. 2) financially. Bob gets it, because he can pay more for it than alice. Which choice above you make as a policy direction is a reflection of your world view. I'm voting for 2), but i can understand the POV of 1), even tho i disagree with it.
    - hunterpayne 8mo ago
      You are entirely missing the point. The correct answer is to build 2 houses. The problem with these policies is that they artificially restrict demand. If they didn't do that, nobody would have a problem with them.
      - chii 8mo ago
        > The correct answer is to build 2 houses the utopian answer is to build two houses. But we don't live in utopia. The constraints faced today is real (paper or physical). You can't wish it away, and you can't say it's "easier" to just build two houses.
  - triceratops 8mo ago
    So build 2 houses.

embedding-shape 8mo ago

Sounds easier to just outlaw investor from owning houses they don't live in themselves. Seems we can't really stop collusion, only real way to win there is to not make that possible in the first place.

triceratops 8mo ago
Then everyone is forced to buy a house to live in, no matter what their situation or desires are. Of course we can stop collusion. What are you even talking about?
- embedding-shape 8mo ago
  > Then everyone is forced to buy a house to live in, no matter what their situation or desires are. Great! Now we're talking real solutions that can actually help people :) > Of course we can stop collusion. What are you even talking about? Besides laws and regulation (which already exists and clearly isn't enough), what is your suggested solution for stopping collusion? Price fixing is/was already illegal in the US (if I understand the Sherman Act correctly), yet the largest landlords in the US was found to engage in price-fixing and artificially raising rents. https://www.propublica.org/article/justice-department-sues-landlords-alleged-price-fixing-realpage-rent https://www.propublica.org/article/justice-department-sues-l...
  - triceratops 8mo ago
    That's not helpful at all. There are many, many situations where you don't want to own. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47434393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47434393 You're telling all these people "f** you"
    - embedding-shape 8mo ago
      I currently don't own, and I can't either, because I don't want to be stuck in one place for too long. If the prices where lower, where I could reliably buy, live for some years then sell again, without a huge amount of hassle, and not costing at least one million to buy some shitty apartment, then that'd be preferably. And besides just having "real estate investors" slurping up all housing, people could own one house then rent out parts of it, or a collection of people could own their apartment building together, there are many other ways to make housing work that doesn't involve huge companies owning large parts of the market. A little bit of nuance goes a long way.