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

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

#241

Post by ethbr0 » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:44 PM UTC

ryukafalz wrote: post #209

jaywalk wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Land area and population density?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_depend...

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

#242

Post by giantg2 » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:44 PM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #222

giantg2 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can lead a horse to water but you can‘t make it drink. Job poor areas in the US have no shortage of incentives or policies designed to lure companies there, but have had little success over the past few decades.

I'm wondering why that is. I would think that with the growing movement against NIMBYism that there would be enough people fed up with those sorts of policies to start moving out of the areas they don't agree with.

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

#243

Post by nickff » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:44 PM UTC

metamet wrote: post #57

nickff wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are foreigners giving money to local construction companies and others in the community "extracting value"? Those foreign investors are capitalizing the community.

And they're taking out much more via rent. If the owner of the property lives in the community, the rent that is being paid to that owner is much more likely to be circulated locally. If the rent goes to a foreign company, it's removed entirely. Upkeep and maintenance would also occur regardless of who the owner of the property is, so it's not like they're creating "new jobs" because it's foreignly owned.

If the extraction of rent over the long term is an issue, do you also consider the extraction of mortgage interest by out-of-state entities to be a similar problem? This is how investments work, people inject money in now, in the hopes of returns later; the hope is that in the meantime, the locals benefit, and are able to create the foundations of longer-term success.

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

#244

Post by pickovven » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:46 PM UTC

noasaservice wrote: post #21

inetknght wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I see a distressed home for sale in my neighborhood and decide to buy it, fix it up, and rent it out Buying something to rent it out is clearly investing. Buying something to fix it and re-sell it is usually also seen as investing. Buying something to use it (live in it) could also be an investment but usually isn't seen as such because it's assumed that you only live in one place.

If its my primary residence, then it's a place to live. If it appreciates, cool. I can make more money when I move somewhere else and use that to leverage my next house WHICH I LIVE IN.. If it goes down, bummer, but I can still use that to leverage my next house WHICH I LIVE IN. I bought the house to live there, not as a financial instrument. The financial thing is secondary.

Oh so you'll always sell your house for the same price you bought it for and never do anything wild like take out a home equity loan?

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

#245

Post by jaywalk » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:46 PM UTC

ryukafalz wrote: post #221

jaywalk wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Famously all the rich people have moved out of Manhattan.

Manhattan is Manhattan. My nice, quiet suburb is not Manhattan.

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

#246

Post by strikelaserclaw » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:46 PM UTC

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…

I think it is more like put regulation in place which makes owning housing as an investment untenable.

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

#247

Post by daenz » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:46 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #236

daenz wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And no, "too bad, go live in the middle of nowhere" isn't an acceptable answer. As someone who grew up in a small town, do you understand how condescending this is? People have homes there, have families there, work hard and live decent lives. Just because they live at a pace you're not accustomed to, doesn't make living there some kind of hellish existence. Many would say the same about a filthy, overcrowded, crime…

You seem to want to get offended for no reason. If I forced everyone from your town to move to downtown New York would they be happy about it? Or could it be that different people have different lifestyle preferences? I'm sure where you live is lovely, but I still don't want to move there myself.

Just because you don't want to live there, doesn't make them "middle of nowhere" is my point. That's an extremely common elitist attitude that I see among tech people who look down their noses at people in rural communities.

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

#248

Post by bradleyankrom » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:46 PM UTC

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…

Picking nits, but Parkersburg is in West Virginia, not Ohio (source: born there).

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

#249

Post by jaywalk » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:47 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #239

davidw wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"You can make a decent argument that concentrated poverty does cause some problems." What differs between it being concentrated or spread out? I see you're making the argument that it should be spread out, but I don't see any explaination of the benefits. Edit: why disagree? This is an honest question.

Forcing poor people into rich areas will make them stop being poor. Or so I've gathered.

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

#250

Post by ryukafalz » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:47 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #215

ryukafalz wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you ignore the racist roots mentioned in a sibling thread (and I maintain that you shouldn’t), we will need low-income housing as long as there are people with low incomes! And it’s best for everyone involved if that housing is commingled in every community rather than being concentrated in one place. It’s well documented that the neighborhood you grow up in has a huge impact on how upwardly mobile you’ll be…

"And it’s best for everyone..." How exactly is it best for the well-off? I'm curious what pros and cons it would have for them.

It promotes empathy with and reduces bias against those of different racial and economic backgrounds, for one. It’s easier for stereotypes to take hold in highly segregated environments because you don’t get much interaction with those outside your own groups.