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

681–690 of 691 posts

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

#681

Post by pwinnski »

buscoquadnary wrote: post #470
pwinnski wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a large and growing number of people who support the idea of outlawing renting from anyone other than the government (public housing). I don't think I agree, at least under current conditions, but then, I own my house.

> There is a large and growing number of people who support the idea of outlawing renting from anyone other than the government (public housing). Yes I love the idea, the only thing that will be more efficient and effective than the mega corp, property management companies that cause most of the problems, due to size and bureaucracy will be the federal government. I love this idea, they are always a paragon of effici…

Your sarcasm seems to rest primarily on the idea that the government is the least-efficient actor possible, which is a popular theory promoted by a group of people who tend to spend their time in control of the government ensuring it is the least-efficient actor possible.

Insert meme of Eric Andre shooting the government and then asking why the government would do such a thing.

In truth, governments around the world deliver a wide range of services at a wide level of efficiencies, and even here in the US, any reasonable comparison of government-provided services with their direct non-governmental equivalents reveals that the government does better than popular image suggests.

I mean, Fedex and UPS don't even deliver to many of the places the USPS does, and when they do, they charge more. Amazon relies heavily on USPS to deliver where they can't efficiently do so. And this is despite heavy-handed handicapping of the USPS in the form of onerous funding requirements by the same party who now tell you that the government is incapable of doing anything well.

There is public housing available in many countries around the world that doesn't carry the legacy of the USA's past efforts. Public housing that is desirable for more than just the economic reasons. Public housing doesn't have to mean total government control of housing. Really good public housing is possible if people want it to happen more than they want to score political points by strangling any efforts in that direction.

The biggest reason I don't support such a push in the USA is because I think there are too many people who think like the parent comment, and will not allow such efforts to succeed. That's not the only reason, though.

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

#682

Post by asdff »

carom wrote: post #607
asdff wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of low hanging fruit in LA for redevelopment that won't even require a tenant to leave. For example on most arteries you have single story commercial buildings with no one living on the property. There's also a lot of generally derelict property I've noticed for a number of years in very prominent locations that are not being redeveloped for whatever reason. For example, this building has seen a few str…

Ha, I know that building. There is always graffiti along the top. Didn't know it was empty. That's a 10/10, next to a metro stop and freeway entrance. I'd buy that in a heartbeat. Looks like it changed hands for 2.8m in 2019. Someone must just be sitting on it. There is low hanging fruit but people with smaller pockets need to go after what is available. I looked at every multi family listing for months in LA until I…

Don't forget the surface parking lots too. Plenty of great locations in downtown LA or Hollywood and elsewhere are squandered. This includes a corner lot on Hollywood and Vine, which seems pretty prime.

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

#683

Post by vel0city »

nayuki wrote: post #671
vel0city wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mortgage + insurance + taxes is a lower monthly payment than what my rent was at the time I bought my house. Compared to that same unit renting today, its several hundred dollars a month cheaper. It has over twice the square footage and a private garage. This is in a pretty big metro area, not the middle of nowhere. One of the biggest benefit of owning is a hedge against housing inflation. Its not a perfect hedge,…

Did you account for the opportunity cost of your down payment? If you chose to continue to rent, you could have invested your $100k or whatever down payment in the stock market for ~7% a year. On the other hand, you have to count the mortgage interest as a cost but not the mortgage principal repayment.

The increase in valuation in my house far exceeds 7% annualized. Compared to index funds and other investments over the few years I've owned it's far outperformed any other "investment".

Obviously, this won't hold true for all time-frames, and I'm not even necessarily a fan of thinking of primary residences as investment vehicles, but if you're going to compare it for opportunity cost it's still not necessarily a home run comparison.

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

#684

Post by akomtu »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #654
akomtu wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a lone farm in the middle of nowhere must be an economic blackhole that siphons money even from suburbia?

if you run electricity, water, sewage, fiber optics, and roads to it, absolutely! The problem with suburbs is that they demand the same utilities as dense areas without paying the increased cost of that infrastructure.

Who builds the roads and power grids for suburbia? Is it city dwellers or rural folks? Where do they get raw materials and construction equipment? Who produces food? Who makes furniture, cars and all other stuff? So what do city dwellers actually do to subsidise suburbia and rural country?

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

#685

Post by Dracophoenix »

danenania wrote: post #679
Dracophoenix wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No sacred tablets here. A right is an ability or activity one is able to purse without the intervention or interference of others. There were rights before government and society existed and if government and society collapsed tomorrow, you wouldn't lose your rights. It's a contradiction to says that society and government decide rights. A right to vote is predicated on freedom of association among a nation's individ…

This is getting to only be about semantics. That’s your definition of ‘rights’ based on your specific set of political beliefs, but it doesn’t reflect common usage or what people are referring to when they call housing or healthcare a right. They mean that society, via the state, should provide those things to everyone. And you absolutely would lose your right to safety without police or some other form of protection…

> This is getting to only be about semantics. That’s your definition of ‘rights’ based on your specific set of political beliefs, but it doesn’t reflect common usage or what people are referring to when they call housing or healthcare a right. They mean that society, via the state, should provide those things to everyone.

Semantics matter. If we can't even agree on the meaning of our terms, then we're talking past each other. Political beliefs aren't necessary to define rights.

And I'm well aware of claimed "meaning" of rights. However, as I stated earlier, such a meaning is contradictory. If a provision must be received from others, then it's not a right. It is a privilege. What the state gives, it is able to take away. Housing that is provided, subsidized, or constructed by the state isn't a right as at any point in time as the state can withhold payments to, modify, take, or demolish such housing.

> And you absolutely would lose your right to safety without police or some other form of protection.

People defended themselves long before there were professional policeman. Additionally, police officers can steal from, maim, and kill people just the same. The badge doesn't inhibit them from choosing to violate the rights of individuals. I don't see how that disproves my point. Safety is product of exercising the right to defend or remove oneself from a dangerous situation. I don't need to seek permission or pay someone protection money to secure my safety.

> The ‘right’ might exist in your own mind, but it won’t do anything to prevent someone else who doesn’t share that belief from killing you and taking all your stuff. Rights are only meaningful with power behind then.

Nothing prevents the state from killing people and stealing their stuff too. Governments have done that before, and many still do it today. Every government is composed of people who are little better in a moral sense than the average individual.

However, If you truly think that power is what makes rights meaningful, then you contradict your earlier statement about housing being a right, even in the popular sense of the term. If power makes right, then no rights exist, as people are no different from resources. Resources don't have rights and the state has no obligation to resources.

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

#686

Post by patrick451 »

twoodfin wrote: post #640
patrick451 wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that property taxes exist at all, combined with the fact that failure to pay property taxes means the government takes "your" land means you are in fact renting the land from the government. The size of these taxes is irrelevant.

I invite you to make that sale to the American voter. My point is that Americans who own one or more plots of land definitely do NOT believe they are renting that land from the government. Ownership is, of course, a degree of control and everything is a matter of degree. Meaningful LVT would be a qualitative change in a home- or farm- or business-owner’s degree of control over what they heretofore considered their pr…

To be clear, my position is that property taxes should not exist at all. An LVT would be doubling down on an already immoral tax. Whether it's pennies or 50% of the land's value, that still makes it the King's land, which I find abhorrent.

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

#687

Post by chmod775 »

kamaal wrote: post #680
chmod775 wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had trouble parsing this argument. You lost me way at the beginning: > For economy to work beyond pie fallacy you need situations where most of the economy is driven by people who make wealth by creating things out of nothing. It's unclear whether you're trying to propose an alternative model here ("beyond?") or are expanding upon something you call a fallacy but still use as the basis of your argument. > Almost an…

>>To most people the answer can be found by looking at the transaction in a broader context, you don't seem to even care. Except that the same argument needs to be applied to housing. Look at it in the broader context. Everything will make sense.

At this point I will assume you're being obtuse on purpose.

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

#688

Post by roflyear »

kamaal wrote: post #673
roflyear wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure OP would be OK investing in a company who focused on building equitable housing solutions. That is way different than what they are talking about and I feel like you're just being obtuse.

>>equitable housing solutions What is equitable? and to whom? This argument is moot. Why do you think you should get to decide how much profit somebody should make. Would you agree with the same if somebody decided to cap your salary, to make some end service/product affordable?

I probably shouldnt even reply to such a poor attitude, but I never said I should decide anything or that I agreed with OP. Just clarified their position, which seems to be the same as saying "I like to invest in companies who I believe are morally sound" etc.. which is not something that is crazy.

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

#689

Post by Breza »

edmundsauto wrote: post #649
driggs wrote: post #286

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 alread…

I often fantasize about taking a job like this for a year or so - just enough time to learn all the skeletons. Then whistleblow.

That's how I feel about cryptocurrency

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

#690

Post by nunez »

xur17 wrote: post #60
yardstick wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As someone that happily rents (I enjoy the increased optionality that comes with this option), the constant push to get everyone to own a house seems weird to me. Yes, we should make it possible to own a home, but it doesn't need to be the only option. Also, rentals tend to be higher density than houses that are owned. If there is a housing crisis, this seems like a desirable thing. Ex: roommates (yes, possible with…

same. i rent largely because i haven't prioritized buying. (i.e. the money i could have saved for the down payment went to accelerated student loan payoff, cars and fun stuff)

aside from the federal tax breaks and very high amount of leverage ($40k to get a loan on a $200k unit that you _might_ be able to resell at $300k to get into a larger $400k unit that you _might_ be able to resell at $500k to get into a larger $600k unit...), I never saw, and still don't see, the benefit of home ownership.

actually, that's not true. for people with families who need (or "need") stability, home ownership makes a lot of sense. you're going to be in the same town until the children reach maturity...might as well get a loan on a house since you're going to stay put for a while. cheaper than hoping that your landlord doesn't bump the rent up.

however, we are not having children, have moved three times in the last six years, and spend a lot of time traveling. i very much like emailing my landlord "hey, weird noise" and they bring in their contractor friends to look into it on their dime

i do hate how there is this sense that you should feel "bad" for not owning, i.e. renters are always pictured as troubled people in financial distress who don't have a choice but to rent.

Post reply on HN