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

Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

pewtrusts.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 691 posts

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#181

Post by Kharvok »

jaywalk wrote: post #87
davidw wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article, speaking to your point, is pretty convincing in terms of the data: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/22524829/wall-street-housin... > The role of institutional investors is still being studied, but the popularity of the narrative strikes at something dangerous: People want a convenient boogeyman and when they get it, they often ignore the structural problems that are harder to combat. Housing undersupply…

Quoted post unavailable.

People want to live near peers. Low income housing creates problem areas and people don't want to live near problem areas.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#182

Post by causi »

welder wrote: post #90
causi wrote: post #49

Owning homes you can't live in is as perverse as claiming domain over a patch of the ocean or a chunk of the sky. The very concept ought to be attacked with every legal method.

Do you own the home you live in or are you renting? Renting is enabled by doing just that, someone owning a home they don't live in. So you want to outlaw renting?

I own mine. The costs are significantly lower than the rent I was paying until last year.

So you want to outlaw renting?

You could make an argument against private renting. Personally I think the right step at this point in time is a relaxation of anti-construction laws such as zoning or parking requirements combined with charging sky-high taxes for unoccupied units. I also think owning single-family dwellings you don't spend at least three months a year in should be taxed so outrageously it's effectively illegal.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#183

Post by throwaway22032 »

davidw wrote: post #98
jaywalk wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

There are reasons for that, but they are generally bad ones involving people not wanting to live near other people who look like the author of the article, even if they won't say that part out loud. Higher density housing is a massive component of building lower carbon footprint cities, as well as making our cities more financially resilient. It's also something that can increase equity a lot by giving people with lo…

In the UK social housing has a bad reputation because poor people are far more likely to just be nightmares to live nearby.

I lived in one throughout my entire childhood. Around half of people were OK, the other half just generally dickheads.

That has 0 to do with racism. Many UK towns have trivial populations of non-"White British".

The problem is mostly that over time (years or generations) poverty gradually turns people into a shell of what a well adjusted human could otherwise be.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#184

Post by kasey_junk »

idiotsecant wrote: post #22
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am not alright with paying absurd rent. Then you should either: 1) Buy a house to live in 2) Buy a house to hedge against rents going bananas The 30-year fixed rate mortgage at negative real rates is the biggest handout the world has ever seen.

the insane mortgage rates we saw in the last few years really are going to be a generational redistribution of wealth that we'll talk about for the next century, I think. That might have been the last train out of town for the middle class to widely own housing in a lot of cases.

No idea about if it’s the last train out of town but home ownership in the US is extremely high[0] (it ought to be we subsidize it like crazy).

If you go back to 1900 you see home ownership rates in the US at less than half of households[1]

The interesting thing to me is how conflated home ownership has become with housing affordability. As we’ve doubled the numbers of home owners we’ve dramatically removed the options for housing.

[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

[1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/coh-owner...

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#185

Post by [deleted] »

jaywalk wrote: post #105
boringg wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on where you live - this "renting is a poverty trap" only applies to certain places and depends on home values constantly increasing. If home values crash where you live then you spent years putting money towards a worthless asset.

> If home values crash where you live then you spent years putting money towards a worthless asset. It's still a roof over my head regardless of how much it's worth. And more importantly, how much it's worth is completely irrelevant unless/until you want to sell. And if you do want to sell, and home values have crashed, then the next house you buy will also be cheap!

[deleted]

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#186

Post by jaywalk »

davidw wrote: post #129
jaywalk wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're never going to win anyone over with the tired "if you disagree with me, you're a racist" BS. Low-income, high-density housing attracts problems. It has literally nothing to do with race. You could guarantee that the high-rise apartment building you want to construct down the street from me would be 100% filled with people who look like me, and I'd still oppose it. Keep your YIMBY nonsense IYBY.

It's a pretty well document fact that it has a lot of its roots in racism. https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten... If that makes you feel uncomfortable, so be it. Americans spend zillions of dollars every year visiting Europe, which is full of high density housing. And come home raving about how much they love it. It does not 'cause problems'.

America is not Europe. It will never be Europe. Things that work in Europe may not work in America, and vice-versa.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#187

Post by paxys »

thepasswordis wrote: post #173
paxys wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a twisted framing of the issue. No one wants to "abolish property ownership". In fact housing proponents want the exact opposite – give everybody the opportunity to own a house rather than a select few large corporations and investors. Let me build my own house on a piece of land in or near the city, just like my grandparents did just a couple of generations ago. Remove years worth of excessive permits,…

>just let me build a house where somebody else already owns the property where I want to build that house. How does that work out in your mind without abolishing the concept of property ownership? What happens when somebody wants to build their house where you already have yours?

I'm not talking about building in someone's front yard. If you sell me a piece of land that you own, and it is now legally mine, should I be able to build a house on it? That itself is practically impossible to do in 99% of cases in most major cities in the US. A city like San Francisco approves like 7-10 shovel-ready housing projects a year, and fewer actually get completed.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#188

Post by wellthisisgreat »

We (people) must recognize that housing is a finite resource and is a variable in a major humanitarian crisis.

Owning a second house for rent-seeking behavior should require a license like using any other scarce natural resource.

Like occupying a river for selling bottled water or digging ground oil.

It should not be a no-barrier free-for-all speculative endeavor.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#189

Post by davidw »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #183
davidw wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are reasons for that, but they are generally bad ones involving people not wanting to live near other people who look like the author of the article, even if they won't say that part out loud. Higher density housing is a massive component of building lower carbon footprint cities, as well as making our cities more financially resilient. It's also something that can increase equity a lot by giving people with lo…

In the UK social housing has a bad reputation because poor people are far more likely to just be nightmares to live nearby. I lived in one throughout my entire childhood. Around half of people were OK, the other half just generally dickheads. That has 0 to do with racism. Many UK towns have trivial populations of non-"White British". The problem is mostly that over time (years or generations) poverty gradually turns…

You can make a decent argument that concentrated poverty does cause some problems. Which is why you should do your best to spread all kinds of housing throughout a city, including plenty of upzoning in wealthier areas.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#190

Post by Dracophoenix »

renewiltord wrote: post #127
jaywalk wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

LOL that is total bullshit. In SF, they oppose high-density high-income housing too. It's total motte and bailey shit. Here's the real algorithm: if density == low: return "This won't solve the problem" if income == low: return "This ruins the neighbourhood character" if density == mid and income == high: return "This is gentrification and soulless coffee shops!" if density == high and income == high: return "This is…

You have it. You can be a NIMBY, YIMBY, or any other XIMBY, but there's just no winning.
Post reply on HN