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

741–750 of 764 posts

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

#741

Post by sershe »

mythrwy wrote: post #422
sershe wrote: post #415

There's no basic human right to have a roof over your head, for the simple reason that someone has to make the roof. Saying "I have a right to have it [without building it yourself]" is saying "I have a right to force someone to build it for me". I dunno about you, I'm uneasy about forced labor. Even beyond that, there's certainly no right to have the roof over your head wherever you want - there is simply not enough…

While I agree (in the abstract) policies that make that roof unaffordably so that others might realize wealth without working seem a bit shortsighted. A lot of people without roofs over their head is a recipe for social instability which affects everyone.

Maybe; it's different than saying it's a "human right" though.

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

#742

Post by carom »

rizoma_dev wrote: post #730
carom wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they took on zero risk to be in that position. If my tenants lose their jobs they get six months free rent while I go through the eviction process. If I lose my job and can't get another I have to sell my property for a six figure loss. I can make this property a single family home or I can make it available to other people as housing that they can't afford to buy outright. I don't understand the landlord hate. T…

There's no sense in arguing about it if you're a landlord, you have a monetary interest in the housing market staying this way and your relationship with your tenants is inherently adversarial

I have an interest in relaxing zoning so I can build. You can't even listen to someone deeply involved in a system telling you how it is broken, or what the incentives you are suggesting will lead to.

* Rent control privatizes the cost of a social problem (poor housing policy)

* Restrictive zoning and other barriers to building are why housing is expensive, this includes historic preservation and permitting too

* Parking minimums are a scourge

If your entire policy is some nimby reach around for single family home owners, I'm not sure anything I say will help you. I literally want to use my money to build more housing. I would also love to unwind all the distortions that currently exist (rent control).

If TiC collectives were a good solution we would see them more in the market. Your solution is just to ruin a market to make it work the way you want, but honestly, people are broke and cannot afford to buy. That also creates so many weird externalities that you seem to be unwilling to discuss.

Goodluck creating a single family home parking lot filled hellscape. I'll be adding units to the market (reducing rents) while you are complaining in la la land.

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

#743

Post by mythrwy »

sershe wrote: post #741
mythrwy wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree (in the abstract) policies that make that roof unaffordably so that others might realize wealth without working seem a bit shortsighted. A lot of people without roofs over their head is a recipe for social instability which affects everyone.

Maybe; it's different than saying it's a "human right" though.

Good point. A roof might not be a human right. But a piece of earth might be.

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

#744

Post by Giorgi »

notpachet wrote: post #193
Giorgi wrote: post #136

No. I am against any "Government is your big brother" kind of thing, real estate is just like any other goods, like an internet or water or electricity, nobody feels uneasy when these were commoditized, so why would anyone feel same about real estate?

> Government is your big brother Government IS your big brother, in the sense that it's a means of ensuring that a single individual can't run roughshod over the rights of others. These "government bad" hot takes ring so hollow at this point. We live in a society. That bespeaks responsibilities to our fellow citizens. > nobody feels uneasy when these were commoditized (I bet a sizable portion of the UK is feeling par…

OBEY

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

#745

Post by iso1631 »

end_of_line wrote: post #524
iso1631 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Very clever idea. Yes. yes it is. She's made millions for doing nothing useful. > the rich ones had plenty of solutions not to pay including with moving to an another country How does a rich land owner avoid paying a land tax? Or a tax on the value of his copyrights (which would be land) Yes the middle class get shafted on things like income and capital gains based taxes, that's the great thing about a land value t…

No she doesn't make millions. It's not her fault that now her house is 10x more valuable ( on the paper ). As long as she doesn't sell, rent somebody else she has no income. No income, no tax. Simple as fuck logic. She bought the property, not a license there for living up to her ends. The thing you are here presenting is a tax of not realized potential income. It's diabolical insane idea. If we can do it for real es…

She's a millionaire. She bought it for $20k, it's now worth $2.5m. She's made $2.48m for doing nothing.

For someone else to live in that house they would have to make a fortune to pay it in rent. She could choose to move somewhere cheaper and have a massive income from either selling it or renting it out, but she doesn't, she's become rich because other people are making the area valuable.

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

#746

Post by throwfh80h82 »

lr4444lr wrote: post #700
throwfh80h82 wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cramming people together more tightly does not create more land.

But they flock to NYC. No one is "cramming" them there.

Not sure I follow your point. NYC is not affordable. Are you implying the New York real estate market is in a desirable state because people still want to live there despite exorbitant rents and never being able to buy a home?

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

#747

Post by tptacek »

rizoma_dev wrote: post #667
kasey_junk wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should probably think about how food gets to the plate before saying commoditization of necessary resources is unethical.

With food the question is less about the individual stocks of produce and more about the land occupied to generate it and who owns it, which in a distressing amount of cases is single large landowners

What you just said isn't responsive to the previous comment.

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

#748

Post by cudgy »

acover wrote: post #255
cudgy wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The zoning argument is such a myopic perspective on the problem. The issue with housing affordability is across many communities, most of which have no issues with shortages of buildable land nor even shortages of housing. The primary impact on prices is from the demand side due to cheap credit from artificially low interest rates and speculation by large investors and small time speculators moving into real estate.

Do you have an example city? I'm curious because when there is lots of supply to meet demand why would prices go up?

Virtually every city other than a few that are essentially islands or peninsulas that are fully built out like San Francisco and New York City. Some examples of cities with plenty of residential buildable land to expand into in the United States are Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Tulsa, Atlanta, Charlotte, Orlando, Tampa (ex Saint Pete which is a peninsula), Jacksonville, Fort Meyers, San Diego, Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Sacramento, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Baltimore, Richmond, Greenville, Nashville, Knoxville, Chattanooga, and a myriad of other cities.

I already explained why prices go up when there is sufficient supply: hyper-fueled demand from essentially free money and new entrants like hedge funds looking for ways to invest the loads of cash they can borrow for nothing and money from their investors as well. In many cities, more than 30% of all home purchases were from investors.

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

#749

Post by Scea91 »

nostrademons wrote: post #708
toast0 wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "What if the city builds infra near my land that makes it effective now to develop? Should I pay more tax now?" > Yes, you should. Doesn't this make NIMBYism even more tempting? I've got to be against any changes near my land, because it's going to increase my taxes and push me to move. In addition to not liking change in general.

Depends if you assume people are rational. A rational economic actor would not be a NIMBY under these conditions, because the increase in land values exceeds the increased tax they would pay, and so they could always sell their property for a profit and buy another one farther away from infrastructure if they don't like it. In reality, people are change-averse and irrational for a variety of reasons, chief among them…

How is the value of unimproved land determined in places where there is no nearby unimproved land to compare with. For example, how would I determine this value in lower Manhattan?

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

#750

Post by horsawlarway »

capitalsigma wrote: post #734
horsawlarway wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This argument of "what if your family lived there before" in housing discussions annoys me to no end. It's NOT about right - it's about demand . It's not relevant at all if it annoys you, the issue is that people can and do form sentimental attachments to the places where they live, and those attachments influence their willingness to pay (or hinder their willingness to sell). And no - I'm not saying "imagine if th…

> It's NOT about right - it's about demand. Sure, that's fair. I'm really reacting to arguments about gentrification, where people do talk about "rights" to stay in a particular neighborhood that apparently get passed via genetic material. > I'm very clearly saying that food is fungible My point is that the reason "fungibility" is important is actually because it impacts supply: there aren't just 100k houses vs 100k…

So outside of the context of most of the previous discussion:

> I'm really reacting to arguments about gentrification, where people do talk about "rights" to stay in a particular neighborhood that apparently get passed via genetic material.

What is it that bothers you about this? Basically - my counter argument is: If a person has been living in an area for decades, and that area is now gentrifying, can't it be reasonably expected that person (or their family) were fundamentally a part of driving that gentrification?

It means that person was putting in their labor and money into that location for decades, and that labor and money was key for creating the conditions that are allowing for gentrification (even if the final catalyst was something else - like a company using the stable area for new expansion)

Simplifying - My counter argument is that forcing this person out is robbing them of the fruit of their labor: A nice neighborhood. They were there when it wasn't nice. They worked in making it nice. Now you kick them out because they were working with a lower income to do it (usually meaning they put in considerably more "sweat equity"). Seems pretty unfair to me.

Post reply on HN