151–160 of 347 posts
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.
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.
no, you just strip NIMBY's of their power. I frankly don't give a shit about grandma's opinion if the owner of the land wants to put a highrise there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What to do with the people who would rather rent than own?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[flagged]
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. > "…
> Bringing prices down is usually a losing idea with existing asset holders Good. They should lose because they abused government policies through NIMBYism to inflate their assets prices. Happy to see them lose
At least we aren't in a situation like 2009 where people walk away from mortgages without making a single payment because they expected to be able to flip within weeks and had no cash at all.
Transpose the problem into a Taylor Swift concert and the problem becomes clearer: Everyone* wants to go see Taylor Swift. She comes to a stadium and the sell out is instant, the aftermarket is bloody and ruthless. The stadium has 90,000 seats, 2,000 floor spots, and they are gone before you can reload the ticket page. Taylor Swift is the embodiment of "good jobs". The stadium is the local housing market. Those VIP b…
There's a ton of affordable housing outside the top ten cities.
For the most expensive places I'd advise young people to consider going there temporarily to get your career started, but don't stay unless you are making serious money -- enough to offset real estate costs. E.g. for the Bay Area I'd say if you're not making over $350k/year by age 30 you should leave.
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.
Why can't we have luxury social housing?
> Price Drops Don’t Lead to Supply. They Kill It. It really depends on how much you reduce costs. If you reduce costs enough, you can have increasing supply even in the face of falling prices. This argument sounds like one made by a hedge fund protecting its real estate investments. The reality is that the housing market in the US (and most countries) is heavily distorted by government NIMBY regulations. Because of t…
Stable firms, not out over their skis, can afford to entice buyers while still making a profit. Just like in a startup, the cost of money and the degree of leverage sets the [minimum] speed limit on the runway.
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…
I wouldn't be. I bought my house to live in it, not as a financial vehicle. I would be thrilled if prices came down and others in my generation could afford a house because I had the dumb luck of purchasing one in 2018 before the shit hit the fan. I couldn't even afford my own house now.