141–150 of 347 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Let's keep moving towards what will benefit everyone And what is that?
You can't think of anything?
So, what is it? OR perhaps you are actually saying that things are (largely) working well, so there's no major course adjustment necessary.
This article is a mess. From the third paragraph: > What happens when prices actually start to fall? Because that’s not just a hypothetical. It’s already happening in places like Phoenix, Atlanta, Miami, Dallas... Then two paragraphs later > In The Atlantic, Rogé Karma recently pointed out that housing prices are rising fastest in the very cities once seen as escapes from high-cost coasts, places like Phoenix and Dal…
This article is a mess. From the third paragraph: > What happens when prices actually start to fall? Because that’s not just a hypothetical. It’s already happening in places like Phoenix, Atlanta, Miami, Dallas... Then two paragraphs later > In The Atlantic, Rogé Karma recently pointed out that housing prices are rising fastest in the very cities once seen as escapes from high-cost coasts, places like Phoenix and Dal…
Also no discussion of interest rates - I bought my house just a few years ago at just under 3%, today I would be paying more than 6% - I couldn't afford the payments if I refinanced. I believe that interest rates are the primary driver of less construction: people who want to buy can't afford to unless they downsize.
Yes, the cost of money (interest) was cheaper a few years ago. But the cost of money has gone up, primarily because central banks are also managing inflation by making borrowing more expensive.
Ultimately, there is no solution in which the core groups will all be appeased: * If prices keep going up, then home ownership remains a luxury of the wealthy and an exploitation of the poor. Asset holders will be thrilled with returns, but the majority struggling to get or stay on the proverbial property ladder will grow increasingly angry at sky-high rents and prices with stagnant wages * On the other hand, if pric…
Old rentals stay rentals, new construction is for people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously the landlord offers something of value or the tenant would just do what the landlord did. Your analogy is also somewhat unfortunate since people did, in the past, rent TVs! Now that supply is far greater than demand, a quality TV can be purchased for very little money.
The tenant can not do what the landlord did only because they are not already wealthy enough for the bank to give them a huge loan. Even if a bunch of tenants band together to collectively develop a property, a bank will not choose them when a wealthy developer is available instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you want the government to be the only landlord or does everyone get their own home from the government (if they can’t afford one)?
Or limit people to owning 1 or 2 homes. Does it make sense for one person to own 100 homes and rent them out? Think about the distinction that permanently creates for people who live in that community. Something like that only benefits the landlord class.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously the landlord offers something of value or the tenant would just do what the landlord did. Your analogy is also somewhat unfortunate since people did, in the past, rent TVs! Now that supply is far greater than demand, a quality TV can be purchased for very little money.
> Obviously the landlord offers something of value or the tenant would just do what the landlord did. I mean, yeah, they had access to capital. As I understand it the traditional answer to this is "the landlord took the risk", but in practice I find that explanation questionable when propping up and supporting housing markets is basically political job #1. I think the landlord was just richer, and was able to use tha…
Generally only winners get looked at. Not the loses in places no one cares about anymore.
Where i live, NIMBYs just killed an ADU ordinance and were screaming just as loudly and about all the same things they would have if you were replacing their grandma's cottage with a high rise. They can't be rationed with. Social housing is the only thing that will really work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "If “build more” was going to bring prices down and stabilize the system, we wouldn’t be seeing these mixed signals." Bringing prices down is usually a losing idea with existing asset holders. Even a financially strapped homeowner does not want the price of her/his home to go down. Politically, this is a complete non-starter. Also, appreciating home values serve as a very strong way to attract talent to a city. > "…
> Why would a homeowner send 1-2 paychecks... Can't the asset holder - the homeowner in this case - get rid of the asset which stopped performing? Why such a strange financial behavior? If the houses are financials - why not to deal with them as such?
Also - the mortgage lender may not allow a sale at a lower than loan value price. The result is foreclosure, and even more loss in value.
Where i live, NIMBYs just killed an ADU ordinance and were screaming just as loudly and about all the same things they would have if you were replacing their grandma's cottage with a high rise. They can't be rationed with. Social housing is the only thing that will really work.