131–140 of 167 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sigh, it is always supply and demand. If demand is higher than supply, prices rise. It is a universal law of economics that people pretend doesn't apply to housing. In these towns, do you have evidence demand is stable and yet prices rise? https://scott-wiener.medium.com/yes-supply-demand-apply-to-h...
Adam Smith would disagree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Penalizing landlords would lead to greater shortages and mass homelessness of would be renters. The houses simply would not be built. You can't have a right to housing without taking away the right to property. Renters are a Group that are already unprofitable to lend to, so banks would reject most and hike rates higher for the rest. Your proposal only makes sense if landlords provide no service, but this isnt true.…
I'm sorry, but selling the landlord's literal rent seeking as a value to anyone but themselves is just blatant antisocial shilling.
The broader problem is lack of housing that can be afforded by the non-wealthy, which is caused in significant part by zoning laws. If more housing was available, the increased supply would better match the demand.
It's also caused by the idea that housing should be an asset to make someone else money, rather than solely a place in which a person/family can live. This leads to the AirBnB culture, the landlord culture, and compounds inequality whilst driving unaffordability. I'm sure the idea is abhorrent to the USA, but perhaps removing incentives to be a landlord at every step should be considered... mortgages should be puniti…
Same argument for food, basic clothing, healthcare, education, transportation, etc. right? There is an argument to be made for communism, but it's not got a great-looking track record.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only in certain regimes, like when labor competition is high. The challenge is houses are the product of both capital and labor, so even if real capital returns are negative, you get stuck with high prices for construction.
Nonsense. Capital simply regulates labor competition to be low. Whether it's by increasing migration of cheap labor, policing worker organizing, company towns, regressive taxes, or many other strategies. There was one single period in history when this changed for a brief moment and capital learned its lesson to always use its power to keep the workers down. It has done so ever since.
You see much higher wages in sectors where demand for workers outstrips supply. AI architects and neurosurgeons don't need labor organization to capture high salaries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Penalizing landlords would lead to greater shortages and mass homelessness of would be renters. The houses simply would not be built. You can't have a right to housing without taking away the right to property. Renters are a Group that are already unprofitable to lend to, so banks would reject most and hike rates higher for the rest. Your proposal only makes sense if landlords provide no service, but this isnt true.…
You should check out what China did about landlords in the 20th century! It turns out that a lot of what you’re suggesting isn’t nearly as true as you might think. However there solution was a bit “break some eggs to make an omelet” but it seems like it worked out pretty well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, but selling the landlord's literal rent seeking as a value to anyone but themselves is just blatant antisocial shilling.
Landlords do provide value. The issue is that underlying asset they are renting is so massively and insanely over valued. If you could get housing for 10% of income, even 50% margin on top of that might make sense in many cases. As landlord would provide some value, like not needing to maintainenance and not needing to transact with property when moving.
Maintenance is largely ancillary.
Im a landlord. Maintenance is only like 2hrs of my labor per month. However, the unit purchase represents about 10,000 hours of my labor. The renter gets to pay maybe 40 hours of worth of labor per month.
Housing theory of everything[0] strikes again. Situation: Housing demand outstrips housing supply. First order effect: housing prices go up Second order effect: your FBI agents are now experiencing financial instability and worries Third order effect: your FBI agents are now more susceptible to bribes [0] https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...
The FBI has a long history of being a bad actor...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why are rents going up drastically all over texas, even in small towns where damn near anything can be built?
Never mind the small towns. Houston has no zoning laws at all, yet: https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/housing/2023/07/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Penalizing landlords would lead to greater shortages and mass homelessness of would be renters. The houses simply would not be built. You can't have a right to housing without taking away the right to property. Renters are a Group that are already unprofitable to lend to, so banks would reject most and hike rates higher for the rest. Your proposal only makes sense if landlords provide no service, but this isnt true.…
You should check out what China did about landlords in the 20th century! It turns out that a lot of what you’re suggesting isn’t nearly as true as you might think. However there solution was a bit “break some eggs to make an omelet” but it seems like it worked out pretty well.
Housing theory of everything[0] strikes again. Situation: Housing demand outstrips housing supply. First order effect: housing prices go up Second order effect: your FBI agents are now experiencing financial instability and worries Third order effect: your FBI agents are now more susceptible to bribes [0] https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...
It’s also worth noting where the money is going. It isn’t evaporating into the air. Everyone talks about increasing numbers of parents helping their adult children from the angle of a moral failure by the children. Why doesn’t anyone stop to wonder why so many older people have so much money in the first place?
It's also worth noting that 50% of homeless people are over 50 [1]
[1] https://www.governing.com/urban/the-nations-homeless-populat...