Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A record number of Americans can't afford rent

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 136 posts

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#101

Post by ejb999 »

throwll202402 wrote: post #85
paulgb wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will not rent This speaks to a fear of mine, which is that laws meant to protect tenants end up backfiring against tenants because they reduce the pool of landlords willing to rent to them. E.g. from the article: > At the state level, Colorado lawmakers have proposed a bill to limit the reasons for which a landlord can evict a tenant. (fwiw I am not blaming you -- you're not running a charity. Just pointing out t…

> This speaks to a fear of mine, which is that laws meant to protect tenants end up backfiring against tenants because they reduce the pool of landlords willing to rent to them. E.g. from the article: yes. really wish "game theory" was something more commonly (ever) in politicians dictionaries. Like not opposed to decent tenant protections at all! but worst words to hear are 4 years after some law "oh we didnt mean f…

one of the many reasons I have chosen to never be a residential landlord - some people make it work, and grow their wealth (good for them) - I don't need or want the hassles of dealing with bad tenants that (at least in my state) have way more protections than the person who actually owns the property.

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#102

Post by alistairSH »

ejb999 wrote: post #96
monkpit wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Costs of a fixed rate mortgage are rising… ok sure

How about insurance, electricity, labor, property taxes and maintenance ... they are not going up in your area?

Electricity is usually paid by the tenant, no? Certainly, I've never rented a place where utilities were included.

The rest are a small fraction of the total cost of ownership (vs financing the initial purchase).

Rents appear to be going up faster than the total cost of ownership (the financing costs are fixed, or nearly so).

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#103

Post by monkpit »

ejb999 wrote: post #96
monkpit wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Costs of a fixed rate mortgage are rising… ok sure

How about insurance, electricity, labor, property taxes and maintenance ... they are not going up in your area?

No - taxes are going up only as a percentage of rising market apprisals of existing housing, which is covered by the renter paying market rates for rent.

Electricity - not paid by landlord.

Labor - not sure what you mean.

Maintenance - fixed rates for home warranty for big things, minor costs for maintenance otherwise which are factored into rent monthly regardless of whether they are used. So that could account for single-digit percent rise in rates.

Anything else?

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#104

Post by jimt1234 »

cglan wrote: post #25

This is basically the late stage of us continually not building enough housing for years and years. I'm not sure how anyone thought this would turn out differently. As long as housing is an "investment", which in turn means that people lock up big portions of their net worth into housing, and then vote against policies that would make housing cheaper (it's the rational thing to do) then this will be the outcome. Just…

What's the point of building more housing if it's all owned by the same handful of investment firms? In my community, over the last few years, one investment firm has spent billions, purchasing nearly 60% of the rental properties. There's smaller players that also own a significant chunk. These handful of investment firms control the rental market, setting the price however they want, since their product (housing) is a necessity and the alternative (competition) is nearly non-existent.

Local political leaders tried to pressure the investment firm to lower the rents, but they responded with "fair-market rent, blah blah blah", and nothing changed. The shameful thing is that the web page of the large investment firm (sorry, don't have a link) basically spells out their strategy: "Purchase rental units in small, low-ish income communities. Raise the rent. Profit. Rinse and repeat." The web page boasted about huge returns; it didn't talk about "fair-market rent, blah blah blah".

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#105

Post by memen »

sjwhevvvvvsj wrote: post #58
gcgbcfy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been disproven so many times. There’s more vacant homes in the US than homeless people. But homes == money. As someone who is a real estate investor, it’s no secret, we are jacking up the prices. It’s what we do for a living.

“it’s no secret, we are jacking up the prices. It’s what we do for a living.” And as with many other ways to make a living at the expense of society - such as fraud, theft, and abuse - it should be illegal.

You could make the case for the opposite:

- there is a housing shortage

- as a society, we should make sure that resources are available for the ones who need it most

- people who earn more money, deliver more value to society (not necessarily true of course, but well, capitalism)

- as a society, houses should be available for the highest earners first

Therefore, everyone should increase prices as much as possible. Until you cannot sell or rent to anyone, then you lower slightly until you can.

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#106

Post by [deleted] »

jimt1234 wrote: post #104
cglan wrote: post #25

This is basically the late stage of us continually not building enough housing for years and years. I'm not sure how anyone thought this would turn out differently. As long as housing is an "investment", which in turn means that people lock up big portions of their net worth into housing, and then vote against policies that would make housing cheaper (it's the rational thing to do) then this will be the outcome. Just…

What's the point of building more housing if it's all owned by the same handful of investment firms? In my community, over the last few years, one investment firm has spent billions, purchasing nearly 60% of the rental properties. There's smaller players that also own a significant chunk. These handful of investment firms control the rental market, setting the price however they want, since their product (housing) is…

[deleted]

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#107

Post by piva00 »

jimt1234 wrote: post #104
cglan wrote: post #25

This is basically the late stage of us continually not building enough housing for years and years. I'm not sure how anyone thought this would turn out differently. As long as housing is an "investment", which in turn means that people lock up big portions of their net worth into housing, and then vote against policies that would make housing cheaper (it's the rational thing to do) then this will be the outcome. Just…

What's the point of building more housing if it's all owned by the same handful of investment firms? In my community, over the last few years, one investment firm has spent billions, purchasing nearly 60% of the rental properties. There's smaller players that also own a significant chunk. These handful of investment firms control the rental market, setting the price however they want, since their product (housing) is…

Or what happens in London (and probably other higher value land over the world): developers buy land for building or properties for renovation, and then drip feed it into the market to keep prices high. It's better, in financial terms, for them to sell new developments over the course of 2-3 years than to dump them in the market, and thus creating negative pressure on prices.

When developers are well financed there's no counterbalance to this strategy, they can keep these units off the market until the price point is right and drip feed some more, without a cash flow crunch they are not losing money.

I've seen this strategy being used in some São Paulo's neighbourhoods, new developments would sell maybe a tranche of 10% of apartments, after 6-12 months a new tranche of some 20%, then another 6 months and 30-50% would appear, crashing the price of the previous owners. Rinse and repeat.

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#108

Post by sjwhevvvvvsj »

memen wrote: post #105
sjwhevvvvvsj wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“it’s no secret, we are jacking up the prices. It’s what we do for a living.” And as with many other ways to make a living at the expense of society - such as fraud, theft, and abuse - it should be illegal.

You could make the case for the opposite: - there is a housing shortage - as a society, we should make sure that resources are available for the ones who need it most - people who earn more money, deliver more value to society (not necessarily true of course, but well, capitalism) - as a society, houses should be available for the highest earners first Therefore, everyone should increase prices as much as possible. U…

Great idea, but incomplete. I think you need to take the logical next step that those that aren’t valuable in terms of earning power should be executed en mass to make commutes of the wealthy more enjoyable. How many people clogging up 101 really need to be alive anyway?

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#109

Post by yonran »

I’m surprised by all the anti-landlord talk in this forum. If we “increase in property taxes for home which are not the primary residence”, or prohibit “own[ing] more than one property in which they do not reside”, these are policies that give an advantage to homeownership over renting but do not stimulate new supply. So they may lower house sale prices but only at the expense of raising the rent, exacerbating the problem that the article is about.

If you want the rent to go down, you should make it profitable for investors to build lots of supply of housing, rental or ownership. Lots of non-owner-occupied houses is a good thing if you rent.

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#110

Post by effingwewt »

yonran wrote: post #109

I’m surprised by all the anti-landlord talk in this forum. If we “increase in property taxes for home which are not the primary residence”, or prohibit “own[ing] more than one property in which they do not reside”, these are policies that give an advantage to homeownership over renting but do not stimulate new supply. So they may lower house sale prices but only at the expense of raising the rent, exacerbating the pr…

With limited supply that means every single landlord is keeping renters from owning.

How about people invest in businesses and not things we need to exist.

Post reply on HN