Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 764 posts

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#711

Post by AnimalMuppet »

danpalmer wrote: post #218
thepasswordis wrote: post #132

>a basic human right You do not have a basic human right to the labor of the people who build and maintain these houses. This is where this entire discussion collapses for me. Yes, I agree there needs to be more access to housing. And it’s frustrating to me that our government is too inept to simply provide it. For instance: we have committed to about 45 Billion to Ukraine. At a cost of $100k/unit (achievable at scal…

> You do not have a basic human right to the labor of the people who build and maintain these houses. But you should have the right to live under a government who provide this for you. It's like saying that you don't have a basic human right to have that doctor help you – no you don't, but you do have a right to have a doctor help you. Safe housing is a human right, as is healthcare, as is food and water, because the…

> > You do not have a basic human right to the labor of the people who build and maintain these houses.

> But you should have the right to live under a government who provide this for you.

Um... how do you think the government is going to do that? They're going to have to spend money to do it, that's how. And how are they going to get the money? They're either going to get it by raising taxes, or by borrowing it. The effect is the same, but with taxes it's more directly obvious. The government is providing you a house by taking taxes from the rest of us.

So... where do you get this "should"? And how should the government provide housing, without it giving you a right to the labor of the rest of us? (Not just those who build and maintain houses, but those who pay taxes to pay for it.)

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#712

Post by AYBABTME »

wszfahwbwbaha wrote: post #705
AYBABTME wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're funny, I have no agenda. I'm a new owner of a triplex, always been a renter before, and we occupy one of the units. I'm just learning this as I go, but the economical dynamics are playing out in front of my eyes and I'm confused at the conflicting policies from local governments. Give me a chance and perhaps believe me if I say I just have honest and good intentions, and this is based on what I'm seeing as I e…

So you admit that you do have an agenda...

I have biases of course, but I don’t see what my agenda would be here? What is it that I’m plotting or trying to influence? Tell me what my agenda appears to be?

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#713

Post by solatic »

___null___ wrote: post #143
solatic wrote: post #133

It's unstoppable. The big difference between today and hundreds of years ago is that it's not enough to have a roof over one's head. Few people farm the land to make a living. One must live close to employment, family, friends, community; ideally in a neighborhood with low crime, close to commerce, and with access to quality affordable education for one's children. Not every neighborhood or property is equally appeal…

> To seek otherwise would be to try to persuade businesses (through tax incentives etc.) to relocate to less-desirable areas, so that people will follow and invest with human capital. I saw this in rural Austria, Im not austrian but it seems to have worked well. Many large industrial factories seemingly in thr middle of no where.

That's precisely my point. It's always possible to move individual companies or factories to somewhere rural with sufficient tax (etc.) incentive. But the initial artificial influx of capital fails to catalyze additional natural investment. Such places always remain "in the middle of nowhere."

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#714

Post by SEJeff »

taxcoder wrote: post #688
SEJeff wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: do you think it’s wrong to let the sick stay sick and not help them? Addiction is a sickness and often requires a lot of help addicts can not themselves do to quit. You can’t expect someone who isn’t able to help themselves help themselves. This is the crux of the issue. Also, people in half way houses or assisted living absolutely should be sober so they don’t cause anyone else in the facility to regre…

Agreed we need to help the sick, I didn't make that clear enough. I was trying to understand if the previous poster thought it was wrong to say "Here is housing and a program. You can't have the housing without the program." After working with foster and adoption of two preteens from an unhealthy home situation my opinions have changed a bit as well. Compassion is hard - it should push us to do. Now if I can just wor…

Empathy is the solution to many of society's current problems. That and more social workers.

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#715

Post by roenxi »

shuntress wrote: post #701
roenxi wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the speculators are wrong the price goes down and people tend not to complain about them. People only start bringing up speculators when they are correct.

That's why bitcoin is such a good investment: the speculators are right about the price going up. /s

They were right. The speculators from 2010-2020 were right that cryptocurrencies are going to be a reality from now on. Like it or not, it is clear that there is a market here that is measured in billions of dollars and it is going to stay with us.

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#716

Post by therealdrag0 »

jventura wrote: post #472
rufus_foreman wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "If everyone took only what they needed and gave the rest to those in need, there would be no such thing as rich and poor" This theory is called communism and it is one of the deadliest ideas known to man. That said, there's an element of truth to the statement. There would be no such thing as rich and poor, there would only be poor.

I think you read too much between the lines! To me it says that you should only get as much as you need, not more, not less, and leave the rest for the others..

Isn’t the “should” there what communism tries to enforce?

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#717

Post by bombcar »

carom wrote: post #678
bombcar wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main way if you look at it is investors willing to run on empty - buying houses and then failing to rent them at the amounts they're trying to get, where they sit empty for some time before the investor goes belly up. This reduces the supply of housing in use .

So in this case the investor is taking a few hundred thousand dollar loss so the building can then be sold for a loss and rented at a price that makes market rent make sense? I feel restrictive zoning is a much bigger issue than empty unsustainable houses.

It rarely actually happens I think, but it does happen. Zillow and that other home flipping company lost billions in total.

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#718

Post by shuntress »

roenxi wrote: post #715
shuntress wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why bitcoin is such a good investment: the speculators are right about the price going up. /s

They were right. The speculators from 2010-2020 were right that cryptocurrencies are going to be a reality from now on. Like it or not, it is clear that there is a market here that is measured in billions of dollars and it is going to stay with us.

Speculation is making crypto impossible to use as currency.

When the speculators run out of bigger fools the bubble will pop.

Crypto can at least just be purely speculative without really hurting anybody but it's not good for housing.

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#719

Post by mxkopy »

RHSeeger wrote: post #698
mxkopy wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a normative fallacy. If people die because they didn't get healthcare, that doesn't mean they didn't deserve healthcare. I'd argue that everyone who needs a liver (which is not the same as a liver transplant ) has the right to one. > but they fact that you need them to survive doesn't define them as such Isn't that basically saying that surviving needn't be in a definition of 'human right'?

> Isn't that basically saying that surviving needn't be in a definition of 'human right'? Yes, because "surviving" isn't a human right. It's something we, as a society, should do our best to make sure everyone is able to do, but that's not the same as saying it's a human right. If it was, then "not having a heart attack" would be a human right, which is clearly ridiculous.

Not so clear to me. If some company flooded a river with heart attack inducing chemicals, would you say that's fine because not having heart attacks isn't a human right?

I'll put it to you like this. If you believe there is a human right, then someone can't pursue it if they're dead. So if, in order to pursue that right, they need to pursue being alive, the pursuit of being alive falls within that right, no?

Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

#720

Post by NonNefarious »

IX-103 wrote: post #173
NonNefarious wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree about the housing speculation, but I challenge the (oft-repeated) assertion that this has caused homelessness. If you could afford to pay SOME rent in an area that got more expensive, then you can move to a less-expensive area and pay the same rent.

Who's paying for the move? How does the move affect commutes and how close is the new dwelling to essential services? If you were already in the lowest priced area and that became too expensive, where do you go?

How many people are ejected from "the lowest-priced area?" I guess we can exempt all of them, then.

But nowhere in L.A. County (for example) is the lowest-priced area.

And regardless of where the next one might be, are we really to believe that living on the street is a better choice?

Post reply on HN