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

111–120 of 136 posts

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

#111

Post by yonran »

effingwewt wrote: post #110
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.

Again, the article is about rents being too high. If you force investors to sell existing housing stock to owner-occupiers, what direction do rents go? Up. If you are anti-rental property investor, then you are also anti-renter.

Instead of pitting renters against homeowners, think of policies that reduce costs for both renters and homeowners by adding supply. E.g., relax zoning to raise height limits and allow apartments, allow more worker visas and encourage people to work in the trades, subsidize construction loans.

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

#112

Post by jjav »

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…

> Just look at the 30 year fixed rate mortgages.

What about them? They make it more feasible to own a home. The rest of your comment appears to favor people being able to own homes, but this comment opposes one of the few things that help make it happen.

> We've basically given homeowners the keys to power to fight back against any and all building developments.

How is that? As a home owner, I didn't get the memo. The local government approves or rejects all kinds of building sites without ever polling or asking anyone outside their agency. Homeowners of the area don't have any input.

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

#113

Post by jjav »

cglan wrote: post #90
janalsncm wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any explanation for the explosion in housing costs cannot simply consider the United States. The U.S. has some idiosyncratic problems, but it’s not the only place with expensive housing.

pretty much every country follows the US in terms of not building housing. In europe, they block for historical reasons (aka not killing the vibe of the cute towns and stuff)

> pretty much every country follows the US in terms of not building housing.

If nowhere builds enough, maybe it's not a practical solution?

Also interesting to observe that the places that build by far the most, that is, the places which are most densely inhabited, are also the most expensive (NYC, SF).

I know the counterargument that even NYC simply hasn't built enough. Need to build more, a lot more. But I have to ask, if the #1 densest place in the US isn't dense enough to be cheap (instead of the most expensive), maybe density just can't make it cheap in practice?

Maybe it takes a place like (Isaac Asimov's) Trantor, with buildings miles and miles dense to achieve cheap housing in a dense place? Will there ever be such a place on Earth? (Do we want to live in such a place on Earth?)

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

#114

Post by jjav »

cglan wrote: post #94
bornfreddy wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So maybe instead of (just) building, make real estate a poor investment? High taxes for more than one home, more difficult eviction procedure and on the other side affordable mortgages for first homes. This way you make them unattractive for investors and more affordable to actual users. Of course, this could also result in just rents going up, so maybe also put a cap on that?

how would that help if there's no supply?

There isn't enough mention of AirBnB in this discussion.

There are areas where a lot of housing is being built but most of it is is siphoned off the local-resident market by investors who convert them into AirBnB rentals. So now all this housing stock exists, but only to serve tourists, and the locals can neither rent nor buy a place to live.

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

#115

Post by jjav »

ipnon wrote: post #42
darkwizard42 wrote: post #33

Looking to learn more on the subject, but why isn't it in the interest of any city these days to NOT build more housing? They are almost perfectly incentivized to attract working young people and families to help increase their tax base (property tax, income tax, sales tax) and housing would help them do that. Given most large cities are facing huge financial deficits, wouldn't this make sense? (Yes, I'm aware of reg…

The city is incentivized to increase housing supply, but the voters are not because their individual net worths are mostly in their home prices. Since a city is really just a set of geographically constrained voters, housing supply decreases.

> The city is incentivized to increase housing supply, but the voters are not

I have difficulty understanding this often repeated assertion.

I've been voting for over 30 years. I've never (to my best recollection) had a ballot question about increasing housing supply in my town. The town government is constantly approving (and sometimes rejecting) housing developments, but they have never asked me.

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

#116

Post by wnc3141 »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #55
wnc3141 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we absolutely need to progressively tax property by number of properties owned. As you own more of a scarce asset, margins on rents are driven toward zero. An aside, I often see worry of corporate ownership of property. While of course this is an issue, the bulk (72%) 1. of the problem lies with simply affluent people who own (fewer than ten) investment properties. I do think however, a fair penalty is to just tax ba…

Your solution to high rents is to increase taxes?

Essentially yeah, it suppresses the crowding out effect of homes rented out which otherwise crowds out first time home buyers in terms of price and access to capital. Also by making each marginal investment property more costly, instances of collusion or monopolistic conditions will reduce as, if occupants have a preference for renting (which I would doubt), there would be more smaller landlords -read as more market competition.

Unfettered use of housing stock as an investment is inefficient and frankly undemocratic as the delta between ownership and renting entrenches inherited wealth. Ideally, although up for debate, would be to use marginal tax to fund creation of low income housing units as Santa Fe NM has recently implemented as a luxury tax on new home purchases.

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

#117

Post by wnc3141 »

wnc3141 wrote: post #116
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your solution to high rents is to increase taxes?

Essentially yeah, it suppresses the crowding out effect of homes rented out which otherwise crowds out first time home buyers in terms of price and access to capital. Also by making each marginal investment property more costly, instances of collusion or monopolistic conditions will reduce as, if occupants have a preference for renting (which I would doubt), there would be more smaller landlords -read as more market…

Important to note is that rentiership, by definition, is a non productive use of capital. (A housing unit does not produce anything, as other deployments of capital do)

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

#118

Post by aorloff »

monkpit wrote: post #103
ejb999 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Taxes also go up because of new bond issues. Regularly

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

#119

Post by Ferret7446 »

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…

Why do people want to make housing in investment? Maybe it's because inflation incentivizes people to find safe investments to park their capital?

I submit that artificial currency inflation is not a good thing as economists claim.

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

#120

Post by effingwewt »

yonran wrote: post #111
effingwewt wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Again, the article is about rents being too high. If you force investors to sell existing housing stock to owner-occupiers, what direction do rents go? Up. If you are anti-rental property investor, then you are also anti-renter. Instead of pitting renters against homeowners, think of policies that reduce costs for both renters and homeowners by adding supply. E.g., relax zoning to raise height limits and allow apartm…

Again. Housing should not be an investment full stop.

Every single landlord is stopping somone from owning a home. If people need to rent we can offer apartments.

This isn't rocket science.

Post reply on HN