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

281–290 of 691 posts

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

#281

Post by giantg2 »

ryukafalz wrote: post #250
giantg2 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I mean, that's good for society. But that's not a benefit for the well off who rely on their "network" (aka nepotism and cronyism).

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

#282

Post by mytailorisrich »

slg wrote: post #40
sillystuff wrote: post #12

In 2012 I was looking at investing in REITs. One REIT's pitch was that they owned such a large percentage of the rental housing in Tampa Florida, that even though vacancy rates were high, and rents were going down throughout the nation and other areas in the state of Florida, they were able to keep rents high in Tampa. Disgusted, I realized the harm that REITs and private equity are doing to housing markets, and want…

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…

There's a huge amount of capital available and borrowing is still cheap.

I don't know in the US but in many European locations building of new housing has drastically slowed down over the past decades, which naturally puts am upward pressure on the market.

There is no need to demonise investing in property, which not the root of the problem (and frankly is often an ideological stance).

If anything, there should be more investment in new buildings to boost supply but very often the problem is planning restrictions.

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

#283

Post by sleepdreamy »

chollida1 wrote: post #53
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.

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.

What gift would that be? Genuine question - I don't see what gift I received that is comparible to my in-laws purchasing their first home for 30k and flipping it for 100k not long after. I haven't had a gift close to that.

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

#284

Post by thepasswordis »

paxys wrote: post #187
thepasswordis wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Link me to an example of an empty lot in San Francisco that you are trying to build a single family home on and can’t, please.

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

#285

Post by nineplay »

undersuit wrote: post #255
nineplay wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you friend. Posters throw out lines like "property shouldn't be an investment" as though the idea that property has intrinsic value is something invented in the last 50 years or so, not something that has been true for millennia. I've been told that "housing is a right" which, if conceded, still runs into your point - housing may be a right, housing in the most expensive and populated areas in the US is not…

How about housing in the most expensive and populated ares in the US is a necessity? If there can't be housing available for all the workers in an area then there needs to be a change. Whether it be higher wages, changes in zoning, or public housing depends on the area, but doing nothing doesn't fix things. Having all the low paying workers commute 2 hours to work every day to make frappes and burgers for the rich lo…

There are no magic wands here. Property is a limited commodity, it can't be expanded to fit demand.

> then there needs to be a change

No there doesn't

> Having all the low paying workers commute 2 hours to work every day to make frappes and burgers for the rich locals is not a viable option.

Viable is in the mind of the beholder. Viable solutions include

- low income workers moving to more affordable areas, leaving the wealthy to make frappes and burgers with their Kurigs and air fryers

- low income workers continuing to commute feeling it is still the best option for them considering all factors

- wages raise in high-income areas to compensate baristas and chefs, allowing them to move closer to city centers.

All of these are 'viable' and none of them make housing a right or necessity.

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

#286

Post by driggs »

I have considerable experience in the Real Estate backend software industry, and so am occasionally contacted by headhunters hiring for Real Estate Investment startups. Here's a typical reply that I give to them:

  I am philosophically opposed to "investing" in real estate, as your industry exists entirely to snatch up affordable housing from actual homeowners as a get-rich-quick scheme, benefiting those who are already rich at the expense of those who would otherwise be rising up out of their own financial situation.
   
  Nothing personal, but I wish you - and everyone in your predatory industry - swift failure in your endeavor, for the benefit of the average homeowner.
  
  Have a good day!

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

#287

Post by ryukafalz »

ethbr0 wrote: post #241
ryukafalz wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Which doesn’t mean much as a comparison point in the US because much of that land has zero or approximately zero residents, and nobody’s talking about building high-density housing in the middle of nowhere anyway. Upwards of 80% of the US population lives in urban areas and those places certainly are comparable to much of Europe.

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

#288

Post by dev-3892 »

spoonjim wrote: post #139
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

Also, inevitably, more fingers per square foot, more calories consumed per acre, higher water usage, and more conversations per minute in the neighborhood.

things that people do increase when there are more people. really unclear what your point is here, and the way you said it really makes you look mean.

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

#290

Post by giantg2 »

ethbr0 wrote: post #253
giantg2 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Social cohesion and avoidance of class warfare. Historically, the decline of most late-stage empires was triggered by spiraling economic bifurcation. Sometimes, it's better to be less wealthy but on top of an ordered country vs more wealthy and without the rule of law as society breaks down.

That's good for society. I doubt that many of the moderately wealthy would really be a cause of this. It seems the ultrawealthy are the main cause in the downfall of empires, as they hold the most influence and become leeches off the people working. And now we democratize those negative decisions via things like REITs, so everyone's 401k is part of the problem.
Post reply on HN