Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing inherently wrong with landlords and rent. Anyone that says otherwise is a tankie. Landlords provide a valuable service. But there cannot be perpetual growth in rents like there is in say the growth of a startup. It’s the corporatization of landlords that is wreaking havoc by forcing them to maximize shareholder wealth. A simple solution is to bar corporations from charging rent for residential proper…
There are other kinds of communists than tankies.
Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?
51–60 of 764 posts
Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
The poster above you (whittingtonaaon) proposed raising taxes on secondary, tertiary, etc. homes. That makes sense to me but "investors" looking for easy prey would surely hate on such solution. It's not like no one could have thought of this until now. I do not say this with the US in mind.
Most money in real estate isn't made on selling people 2nd homes. Unless I misunderstood your comment and you think corporations and investors shouldn't be able to own more than a single home at once(so landlord abolishment)?
Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?
#53If you actually want to do something about it, advocate for zoning reform. People buy SFH because the lack of MFH in some areas makes them a pretty sure bet appreciation-wise. If developers were more free to build duplexes/quads/ADUs or larger, the increased supply would theoretically lower rents in the area and make SFH less attractive as an investment vehicle.
Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?
#54No, because governments' ability to procure it for the needy is a very separable problem. But let me play Devil's Advocate: agriculture, the foundation of the food supply, is one of the most commoditized markets that exist. Does this bother you too? Why not? If it's because food is generally a smaller part of income, highly responsive to market pressure to keep prices low in addition to some stabilizing subsidies fro…
> agriculture, the foundation of the food supply, is one of the most commoditized markets that exist. And one of the most regulated and subsidized markets...
Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?
#55Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?
#56Well when you say "human right" and a government insists that home ownership is something they will focus on as a human right in their program, to a finance person what you are really saying is "this asset has a free put option attached to it". And having a backstop like that is a very sought after feature for speculators. It isn't the only area where speculators take advantage of it( for example energy generation is…
The poster above you (whittingtonaaon) proposed raising taxes on secondary, tertiary, etc. homes. That makes sense to me but "investors" looking for easy prey would surely hate on such solution. It's not like no one could have thought of this until now. I do not say this with the US in mind.
Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?
#57"I'm not doing any harm," you say. "I just want to keep what I own, that's all." You own! You are like someone who sits down in a theater and keeps everyone else away, saying that what is there for everyone's use is your own...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. After all, didn't you come into life naked, and won't you return naked…
Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?
#58Low interest rates, zoning laws limiting supply, a shift into urban centers. It's really a perfect storm that pushed housing prices up and just encourage people to speculate. It could have been avoided. More housing could have been built. Government incentives to "get people owning their own homes" could have been better structured to avoid just goosing prices.
People treat houses like investments because, well, they produce returns like investments. If they didn't, people wouldn't look at them that way. You can't blame people for responding to incentives.
The best way to get people to stop buying houses houses as investments is to make them less attractive investments. Everything else will fail. Higher taxes, vacancy taxes, foreigner taxes - it all just encourages fraud, gaming the system, bending the rules. Take a look at Singapore's mess of public housing with built in profits. Every year they roll out some new rule to try and stay on top of it and every year Singaporean's get around the rule because it's just too lucrative not to.
But if you've been around long enough you'll realize it's a problem that will solve itself. Markets correct. People will move where houses are cheaper. Interest rates eventually rise. New houses will get built. New cities will become "desirable" and some old ones won't.
I remember back in 2008 when houses went from "you're a sucker if you don't buy now" to "I'm never owning a house again". It flipped like a light switch when suddenly the gravy train halted. Condo developers in Miami were selling units for $30k and had no buyers.
All this talk of "houses are being treated like a commodity" is just an observation, at a single point of time, at the top of the boom bust cycle. If you take a step back, you realize it's just a blip in time.
It reminds me of the quote from the movie Margin Call: "And it's certainly no different today than its ever been. 1637, 1797, 1819, 37, 57, 84, 1901, 07, 29, 1937, 1974, 1987-Jesus, didn't that fuck up me up good-92, 97, 2000 and whatever we want to call this. It's all just the same thing over and over; we can't help ourselves. And you and I can't control it, or stop it, or even slow it. Or even ever-so-slightly alter it. We just react. And we make a lot money if we get it right. And we get left by the side of the side of the road if we get it wrong. And there have always been and there always will be the same percentage of winners and losers. Happy foxes and sad sacks. Fat cats and starving dogs in this world. Yeah, there may be more of us today than there's ever been. But the percentages-they stay exactly the same."
Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?
#59"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds" — Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice , 1797
Re: Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?
#60What you have with institutional investment in real estate, NIMBYism and the treatment of housing as an asset where it becomes a political goal to increase its value (and thus, by definition, reduce its accessibility) is an example of the exploitation of inelastic demand.
People need housing. There are other things they need like food, which has also been commoditized [2]. How about insulin? By having super-expensive insulin in the US you are quite literally profiting off something that people will die without.
Government is what's required here to protect people from predatory hyper-capitalism. It's also why any ideas like anarchism and libertarianism are so stupid.
Debt is built into your existence. Thing slike the commoditization and profit-seeking of inelastic demand are designed to keep you in debt, at work and compliant. It is a systemic problem.
On a personal level, yeah this isn't something I'd want to work on. You also have to live in the world so I don't really blame individuals for doing what they have to go to get by. For those of us who are fortunate to have choices on what not wo work on, yeah I'd hope you'd choose something that isn't designed to profit from human misery.
My one piece of advice is this: if you do choose to do something morally questionable, for your own sake, don't try and rationalize it. Be prepared to say "yeah this thing sucks but a few years of this will make life-changing money" or something like that. Personally, agree or not, I'll respect that as honest (FWIW). Just don't create some contorted rationalization for how it's actually ethical.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School
[2]: https://theweek.com/articles/492432/did-goldman-sachs-provok...