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

571–580 of 691 posts

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

#571

Post by tshaddox »

jjoonathan wrote: post #128
tshaddox wrote: post #97

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? So one group wants to maintain a financial investment that was sold to them as a sure-fire way to make money with little work and little risk, and anoth…

No, it's not hard: investment = getting paid to take risks. That's the whole point. Profits come with responsibility. Of course, if responsibility suddenly means losses instead of effort-free gains, investors will try to squirm out of their responsibilities. Morally, though, the situation is crystal clear.

> investment = getting paid to take risks

Well, kinda? It's more like getting paid to know the risks better than the market, or getting paid to be able to predict the future better than the market.

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

#572

Post by giantg2 »

kritiko wrote: post #541
giantg2 wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There can be a vicious cycle driving safety concerns. If people being jobs to the area (pontifier didn’t) then things can get better. There are countless other towns and cities and they don't all have a safety problem. There are plenty of smaller cities in Appalachia that could be good candidates.

I’m curious what cities you have in mind. I’ve spent time in Western, PA and while it’s definitely a lot safer than Pine Bluff, feels like there’s lots of issues with pollution, blight, and opiates even with fracking jobs and money coming into the area.

Opiates are literally everywhere, even in affluent areas (Chester County's main line area has issues, but they look different since they have money). Blight (assuming this is houses that don't look great) is going to occur anywhere there's a lack of money. The reason jobs don't fully fix the blight is that many of those people are on a fixed income and retired (elderly are an outsized portion of the population since the kids had to move away for work). The people who do have jobs tend to have well kept properties. I'm not sure about the pollution problem aside from some sulfur creeks in the region.

I'm sure there are plenty of candidate cities throughout the overall region, and it would likely depend on what the industry is. Someplace around Indiana PA would be good if you need semi close access to a commercial airport, a larger city, or a college. Erie could be similar. Johnstown PA area is good if you have government contracts, defense work, or need a regional or shipping airport. Bedford or Breezewood PA can be good for warehouses and shipping with the highways. Medium to small companies would be well served to position themselves between two medium/small towns for cheap land and larger workforce pool without being near the larger cities, like Millville and Stillwater as an example.

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

#573

Post by [deleted] »

hahaxdxd123 wrote: post #567
anon291 wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because republican lawmakers come from states where this is not a problem. Perhaps many houses in red states are owned by corporate landlords but housing is way more affordable in those states. So this is a case of lawmakers simply not seeing the problem amongst the people they represent and thus being unwilling to pass what they view as unnecessary regulation. Ultimately housing affordability is a blue state problem…

Homeowners are >75% of the US voting populace. You will never pass a policy that decreases home values. "88% of U.S. Republican voters own homes, 78% of U.S. Democratic voters own homes, and 73% of U.S. independent voters own homes" https://centerforpolitics.org/downloads/pub_housing_2.pdf

[deleted]

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

#574

Post by anon291 »

hahaxdxd123 wrote: post #567
anon291 wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because republican lawmakers come from states where this is not a problem. Perhaps many houses in red states are owned by corporate landlords but housing is way more affordable in those states. So this is a case of lawmakers simply not seeing the problem amongst the people they represent and thus being unwilling to pass what they view as unnecessary regulation. Ultimately housing affordability is a blue state problem…

Homeowners are >75% of the US voting populace. You will never pass a policy that decreases home values. "88% of U.S. Republican voters own homes, 78% of U.S. Democratic voters own homes, and 73% of U.S. independent voters own homes" https://centerforpolitics.org/downloads/pub_housing_2.pdf

Republicans own cheaper homes though based on where they live.

It's easier to buy a home for the average person in a red state, as evidenced by higher home ownership

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

#575

Post by refurb »

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…

I'm not sure I'd believe what a REIT says? They have every incentive to overstate their position. I mean, they're trying to sell you something.

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

#576

Post by klyrs »

spoonjim wrote: post #350
dev-3892 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Per capita murder rates are much higher in large cities than in rural areas.

That's the common wisdom, but is it true? https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-07/is-new...

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

#577

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

wizofaus wrote: post #506
chollida1 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't believe our purchase locked out any first home buyers, it's a tiny 1BR flat I mean, by definition that property would have sold to either a new home buyer or another speculator like yourself. And by definition, if you own a property you rent out, you are a speculator:) i have no problem with you being a speculator:)

I would if I thought I was one! A speculator I'd see as the sort of person who regularly buys and sells property hoping to make quick cash. While there is some tax regulation to discourage that here (you pay a lot more in CGT if you sell quickly etc.), I still don't think we have the settings right, it's too easy to make money if you already have it, at the expense of houses not being available to people who actually…

Where did you invest in CA that the Price-to-Rent ratio isn't abysmal? Or did you buy 20+ years ago?

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

#578

Post by Dracophoenix »

danenania wrote: post #347
Dracophoenix wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've been told that "housing is a right" An easy reply to these same people is to ask if they think they have a right to wood, brick, concrete, sewer pipes, electrical wire, all the other materials that go into making a livable house, and, on top of that, if they think they're freely entitled to the labor required to construct a house out of these properties.

Every right requires infrastructure, investment, and labor to ensure. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren’t free. Whether or not housing should be a right, rights that are expensive to provide but are nonetheless provided anyway are nothing new.

> Every right requires infrastructure, investment, and labor to ensure. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren’t free.

People had natural rights long before the concepts of infrastructure, investment, or labor were ever conceived.

> Whether or not housing should be a right, rights that are expensive to provide but are nonetheless provided anyway are nothing new.

My point wasn't about expense. It was about a perceived entitlement to resources and help outside oneself. Housing in itself is not a right as it depends on resources and labor that don't belong to you. Such resources and labor are not rights.

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

#579

Post by hahaxdxd123 »

anon291 wrote: post #574
hahaxdxd123 wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homeowners are >75% of the US voting populace. You will never pass a policy that decreases home values. "88% of U.S. Republican voters own homes, 78% of U.S. Democratic voters own homes, and 73% of U.S. independent voters own homes" https://centerforpolitics.org/downloads/pub_housing_2.pdf

Republicans own cheaper homes though based on where they live. It's easier to buy a home for the average person in a red state, as evidenced by higher home ownership

> democrats rarely vote for actual regulation, they just promise it to you and then make excuses.

I am making the point that there is no political coalition, Democrat or not, that wants lower home prices (from where they are right now).

And I disagree with that point anyway - see abortion rights post Roe. The blue/red state policy differences are stark.

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

#580

Post by istorical »

mulmen wrote: post #384
rngname22 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a thread about the wealthy investor class buying the literal land and shelter and hoarding it so they can profit off those they lease to. What was that you were saying about unsustainable and selfish? Fight selfish with selfish.

Van life isn’t a scalable alternative to permanent housing. The reasons for this are many. One of the obvious ones is that if a wealthy investor class can buy up houses and extract rent they can certainly buy up vans and extract rent. So it isn’t even resistant to the very problem you suggest it can solve. Take a look at how much a 1980s VW Westfalia is these days. It’s as absurd as house prices.

Land in desirable areas seems to me to be a much more scarce resource than the inputs and labor that go into a vehicle, especially if you add time - aka decades to make such things cheaper. Not sure how time and technology can do the same for land ownership.
Post reply on HN