Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

441–450 of 764 posts

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

#441
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Water commodification is exactly what Nestlé is doing What we need is regulation to stop them from doing that, not a different company selling and capturing the water. That's just more of the same thing which solves nothing.

Nestle gets all the water they want for a $200 permit. That's not water commodification. They sell bottled water, but that's also not commodification of water. Almost 0% of US water consumption comes from a plastic bottle, and you can't commodify a market with ~0% market share.

Your statement is false, what Nestlé does is literally the definition of commodification

Commodification definition:

the act or fact of turning something into an item that can be bought and sold: The commodification of water means that access is available only to those who can pay.

>https://www.dictionary.com/browse/commodification

Nobody mentioned the US. Nestlé does this in various other countries.

>https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/04/ontario-six-n...

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

#442
The problem is more fundamental or broad than housing. The problem is that a few groups have amassed way too much money, and they are desperate for solid places to put it (especially in those times when interest rates were negative!).

Naturally, they look to real estate since real estate is famous for being a "safe" place to park money. And as history usually shows, it's a place where your money will grow as the asset naturally increases in value... "They're not making any more real estate", as the motto goes.

If you stop and imagine a utopia where everyone had approximately the same wealth, give or take a "reasonable" factor of less than 10, then the wealthier people could own one really nice home or more than one not-so-fancy home. With their excess money, they could conceivably own and rent out another property. This would be fine, since the person on the bottom of the scale might not like the only home they could afford, or maybe they don't plan to stay put long; so they could rent a nicer home from the aforementioned wealthy person.

Of course regions which were more attractive to live in (coastal southern California, for example), the homes would be more expensive because there would be more demand. But still, there would be an upper limit on how expensive they could be because there wouldn't be people who could afford mansions. You might still find homeless people in southern Cali, because sleeping in the park by the beach in an ideal climate just might be worth it to some people compared to sleeping in a home in some suburb of Dallas, Texas.

Instead, we are on a clear path toward Corporatocracy. As long as you're a member of the elite in a corporation, you'll be fine. You'll have more than enough money to afford a very nice home... and perhaps even at a below-market price thanks to a corporate benefit, since your corporation may own thousands of homes.

I'm looking toward boats. There are beautiful places in the world where only smallish boats can go (so that keeps out the megayachts), and with some training you can relocate yourself relatively as you please, enjoying different parts of the world. As long as we have workable internet anywhere, which we do have mostly solved now, other needs should be relatively small and easy to manage.

A 40-50 foot sailing catamaran costs $250-750k depending on its age and quality. Figure 10% per year for maintenance, and you're still in the range of a reasonable home price. Plus you never have to live near crappy neighbors if you don't want to.

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

#444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would start by making property taxes substantially higher for non-owner-occupied property. If you are rent-seeking rather than residing on the property you should pay way more, maybe 4x or higher, in taxes. Housing prices would crash and that would be the point; but everyone who owns property would be against it because they don't want to see their assets drop in value. The counter-argument people make is "that wou…

As others have said, this is an absolutely terrible idea and highly destructive to renters. There is simply no reason to boogeyman real estate investors so long as they are renting out the property. Renting is no less valid a form of housing than ownership and policies like you describe are already in place in many jurisdictions such as Ontario and it is already as we speak harming renters. For all the people saying…

> Renting is no less valid...than ownership

I think ownership is better because people value securing the shelter where they sleep. Renting is worse because you can't make decisions about how to improve land and architecture. You are only permitted to be there under a limited contractual agreement vs. being able to stay put until you decide to sell.

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

#445

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.

that’s an extremely anachronistic reading.

You're quoting an author from the 300's in a comment thread about today's housing market. That's an actual anachronism.

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

#446

It's a natural first impulse, but it's wrong. What is the correct impulse is to be concerned about how lopsided most cities zoning is towards single family, as that is what is driving the market power that makes real estate profitable as a financial asset. If most of a city was zoned to allow up to multi residential highrises rather than most of a city being zoned for single family it would cut the appreciation abili…

> because city governments zoned everything wrong for the actual demand This is the core problem. Commoditization, or rather, people cornering the market is secondary. City government is doing this because it is elected by those who own single family units. This is self-stabilizing. If the majority would live in multi residential highrises, there wouldn't be an incentive to artificially create scarcity. Instead, ther…

Your last statement is not correct. People like to invest where they can make money and multi residential rent is profitable in most places and we have REITs and other financial instruments ready to grow and invest lots and lots into multi residential rentals to generate a decent cash flow to send back to investors. The problem for them now is that there is so little land zoned that way that these guys are often outbid by people building luxury apartment condos (because that's the most profitable up front thing to build and it is relatively low risk because of constrained land supply). In a land abundance situation it shifts profitability from scarce luxury apartments (because they no longer have to be scarce) to rental units, plus it allows buildings to age out into rental units rather than age out into being renovated or torn down to make higher value luxury apartment condos. All we need to do is force cities to zone land this way rather than allowing them to cave to nimby's trying to push up the value of their single family home.

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

#447
post #305
post #5

I definitely do. It's something that turns a basic necessity into a speculative asset, with a price distorted by the money poured into it. Airbnb is also a deeply harmful influence on housing prices. Imagine if we did the same thing with, say, water: privatized it and then "democratized" ownership of it. It's easy to get retail investors to buy things at inflated, speculative prices, so the price of water would go up…

> It's something that turns a basic necessity into a speculative asset The solution to that is the same as the housing problem - build more housing. And it's fine if the new housing is "luxury" housing - then yesterday's luxury housing becomes today's not-so-luxurious, etc.

In theory. What we see in practice (here in SF) is a glut of vacant luxury homes next to people living in RVs and tents. Belvedere Island (where Captain Kirk will one day live) is mostly empty. The fancy homes there are almost all investments, few people actually live there.

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

#448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would start by making property taxes substantially higher for non-owner-occupied property. If you are rent-seeking rather than residing on the property you should pay way more, maybe 4x or higher, in taxes. Housing prices would crash and that would be the point; but everyone who owns property would be against it because they don't want to see their assets drop in value. The counter-argument people make is "that wou…

> But I call b.s. on that. Residents would be able to afford new construction and maintenance if those things had lower price pressure. Including those on minimum wage? Including secondary education students who have no income? Including (international/visiting) folks on a (consulting) contract that may not want to settle in the location? There are many situations in which rental housing is the solution for people. >…

> There are many situations in which rental housing is the solution for people.

Then we can address that via rental vouchers to offset the taxes.

Real estate has the same problem as healthcare, in that it's an enormously complicated system, where any adjustment always has negative outcomes.

However, I agree with parent that the central and most critical failing is -- we are not incentivizing owner-occupied home construction at an accessible price point.

And a critical component of that is decoupling {build and sell to commercial landlord} and {build and sell to occupying owner}. The former will always be able to deploy more capital, and thus drive up the asset price to levels the latter can't afford.

And just to make it explicit: this is independent of density. You can have dense development that is still owner occupied (individual units).

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

#449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how many people in government globally refuse to understand this. The UK government has just been talking about inheritable 50 year mortgages. No one wants to build more housing. I think it might help people understand to put it in terms like this: there are 100 housing units out there and 150 people. How do we solve the problem?

Make small cities and towns desirable again and put those 50 people somewhere else.

Small towns are just inherently unsustainable in a globalized developed economy. Most of our economic activity comes from working with other people, that means the rational move is to move to where everyone else is, ie a city. Remote work can slow that process down, but it’s not reversing.

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

#450
post #365
post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't permanently consuming a portion of the most important finite resource in a state (the land) by buying a cell phone or a sports car. You're certainly taking advantage of public resources and services on a global scale with those other purchases, which I also think is worth addressing. But in the case of land ownership the correlation is very local and easy to draw.

But it's not easy to draw the correlation between land usage and state resource usage. There is basically none because land doesn't use resources. People do. Your argument confuses cause and effect. People that gain large benefits from the state do so because they are rich. And because they are rich they can afford expensive land.

The "land doesn't use resources" argument seems a bit out of nowhere, because we've been talking about people the whole time here - people's ownership of land. That's also why I mentioned valuable land and not large land. Land derives its value from proximity to other valuable things, and will be developed more densely the more desirable it is in that regard, putting proportional strain on public services and resources like utilities, roads, policing, etc. There's a clear cause and effect here in terms of land value and incentive to develop, and it's an advantageous route for taxation because it would be difficult to game.
Post reply on HN