Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by furyofantares » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:32 PM UTC

desperadovisa wrote: post #164

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,…

Sorry but with all due respect, "too bad, go live in the middle of nowhere" is absolutely an acceptable answer. You're acting like you're entitled to live where ever you want, but the simple reality is that this is not possible. You need to come to grips with that objective fact.

There's a giant gap between "you're entitled to live wherever you want" and "too bad, go live in the middle of nowhere."

My read is that the person you're responding to is in the middle of that gap; and your response frames them as being on one extreme edge and then says an acceptable answer is to go to the other extreme edge.

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

#202

Post by thatfrenchguy » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:32 PM UTC

yardstick wrote: post #35

JamesBarney wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just need to remember that banning housing investment means banning rentals which is problematic for people who don't have good credit and a down payment.

Imagine if housing was cheap enough that paying the mortgage was around the same as what it now costs to rent. There definitely needs to be some rentals, but I believe that there needs to be controls over how many and the rental price.

I mean, in San Francisco or the Bay Area in general, renting is a ton cheaper than owning at current prices. People still buy, because it’s nice knowing your landlord won’t get the cheapest contractor that’ll drill into asbestos in your kid’s room when something happens.

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

#203

Post by jaywalk » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:33 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #189

throwaway22032 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just build high-density housing in rich areas!

And then what, you expect rich people to move in? They won't. Poor people are going to move in. And the rich people who made that area nice in the first place are going to flee, because it will turn into a not-nice area.

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

#204

Post by random314 » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:33 PM UTC

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!

The OP is talking about a situation where it would be cheaper to rent your home in the future, than make mortgage payments on it.

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

#205

Post by chollida1 » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:33 PM UTC

wizofaus wrote: post #171

chollida1 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep Millennials, Gen X and Boomers have all been handed a once in a lifetime gift here. Each of those generations made out like bandits with low housing prices until the last few years and low interest rates. Gen Z and the generations to come have a real reason to be pissed at the rest of us.

In Australia at least there's a substantial gap between affordability for millennials and us Gen X'ers, reflected in homeownership rates. The trend only seemed to have been getting worse throughout covid (governments threw a lot of money into economic recovery, combined with super low interest rates, driving up house prices despite near zero immigration and absence of foreign students etc., though they're coming down…

No idea about the US, I'm in Canada and housing has only gone off the rails in the past 4-5 years. So those 3 generations all had legit chances to buy a home at a reasonable price.

I'd assume every country is its own special mess:)

In Canada last year we had a stat released that said 1 in 5 Millennials that own property own more than one. This was inline with both GenX and Boomer stats.

Millennials are just as much a part of the problem as any other generation, assuming you think speculators are part of the problem.

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

#206

Post by giantg2 » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:33 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #62

slg wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have spent decades telling American families that homeownership is the safest investment. We then spent decades enacting policies to ensure this is true. Do we think investors were going to just sit that out and ignore a safe and government protected investment? Of course the more attractive we make home ownership as an investment, the more investors will flock to the market. We need policies specifically benefiti…

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…

So that's only one side of the equation. The other side is distribution. Perhaps we could have policies that create jobs in areas with shrinking populations or abundant cheap land and lax zoning. Nobody seems to talk about this.

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

#207

Post by jeffbee » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:33 PM UTC

desperadovisa wrote: post #164

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,…

Sorry but with all due respect, "too bad, go live in the middle of nowhere" is absolutely an acceptable answer. You're acting like you're entitled to live where ever you want, but the simple reality is that this is not possible. You need to come to grips with that objective fact.

Clearly it is ethically problematic for the people of San Francisco to squirt out babies and then 18 years later tell them to go fuck off, go live in Gary, Indiana.

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

#208

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:34 PM UTC

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…

Um.. the qualifier is very broad. I would posit that the owner of the house ( and therefore part of a given community ) is in a very good position to judge whether or not a given project is, or is not, beneficial to that community. There is nothing to be quiet about. Neighborhoods that house predominantly black population tend to have houses with lower dollar value. As a result, chances to transform the owner's local habitat to one that that does not benefit the owner is highly irrational, regardless of current political winds.

They are not nicer as a matter of fact. Part of that niceness is being funded with higher prices ( and taxes ). You take that away by adding some things NIMBYs are fighting about and the result is a neighborhood whites will flee. And cries of racism will continue.

edit: clarified value in first paragraph

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

#209

Post by ryukafalz » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:34 PM UTC

jaywalk wrote: post #186

davidw wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This always strikes me as an unsatisfying response. What about America is so fundamentally different than Europe that would make the same policies that work there not work here?

Every time I’ve seen this type of argument brought up, it’s fallen flat when the same infrastructure is built here because it does end up working. We’re really not so unique.

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

#210

Post by standardUser » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:34 PM UTC

mancerayder wrote: post #155

thepasswordis wrote: post #88

I'm so frustrated by some of the conversations people get in around housing. They want to live in the most desirable places on planet earth, and seem to think that we should just abolish the concept of property ownership to accomplish this. What do you guys think happens when you get what you want, and nobody can "own" property anymore? Do you think there is an unlimited amount of single family 3000 square foot homes…

Just to hammer home the point: NYC has rent stabilization, which applies to about 50 percent of the rental stock. The rent can't go up more than a certain amount, one must renew with the tenant with few exceptions, etc. Now, not surprisingly these units are offered by real estate brokers who demand steep fees, and guess who gets first dibs, but brokers and their friends/families.

Most rentals in NYC no longer work with brokers, especially in the low-to-middle range.