Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many localities will have co-living restrictions for single-family homes.
Apartments exist everywhere with a population over 100. Does no one rent an apartment with roommates anymore?
They avoid it because it sucks
Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore
471–480 of 550 posts
Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore
#472Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you can lose money does not mean you are "taking on risk" in the way a bank or insurer does. If they didn't "take on that risk," the land is still right there being land. That is not true for banks or insurers, where if no one was willing to hold that risk then the inverse product wouldn't exist.
Banks hold money for you, the cash would still be under your mattress if the bank did not hold it. I'm sure you have a philosophical point here, but this is exactly how the modern economy prices risk. Your understanding of the semantics of risk is not being questioned here.
Uhhh... banks do not "hold money for you." You think banks pay you interest to have the privilege to... hold your money?
No.
They pool deposits and they lend it out, taking on the risk of doing so with the guarantee they will make their depositors whole. This is called "taking on risk," and they are paid for this service (among the other instrumental services they provide in order to make this happen). Without banks providing this set of services, these deployable pools of capital would not exist.
This is absolutely not the same as the price risk that any asset holder has, and it is not what landowners are paid for.
It's not a philosophical point. It is literally a question of who is getting paid what, and why?
Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth being precise about this because it's a really important point. Most people who we call "landlords" are simultaneously a landlord and a property manager. Property management is an important and productive job. But the vast majority of such people's financial outcome is actually from being a landlord , that is doing literally nothing except holding a piece of paper granting them monopoly on a plot of land.…
> But the vast majority of such people's financial outcome is actually from being a landlord, that is doing literally nothing except holding a piece of paper granting them monopoly on a plot of land This is how I know that you've never tried to run houses. If you hire out a property manager and all of your maintenance you are not making money. I have to be an electrician, a plumber, a painter, a drywaller, an enginee…
No I do "run houses." I bought a house, rented it out, paid a bit for maintenance throughout, covered the entire mortgage the entire time, then sold it for 50% highly levered capital gain in ~4 years.
It's not because I'm an awesome landlord or property manager. I did the bare minimum. It's because the location appreciated thanks to the community surrounding the house, which is the driving force of the vast majority of gains in real estate.
Landlords complaining is honestly some of the funniest stuff on the Internet. I really appreciate the lols.
Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
The claim is that if you increase supply the price will drop. The counter-example is a case where supply was increased and the price doubled. The question is why did that happen? It very much looks like the "just build" model is insufficient to explain what's happened in that case.
Because demand outran the supply. Prices drop when demand falls below supply. Not when new supply is added.
Diiid you read what they said about Australia?
> the number of dwellings increased by 19% while the population increased by a smaller 16%
That is the opposite of demand outrunning supply.
Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
The steelman interpretation would be that government is the only party allowed to own rental properties. Nobody would be allowed to rent out a space they owned because it would turn them into a landlord. All of the rooms people rent out to others would go away. You wouldn’t be able to rent a private house from someone, you’d have no choice but to live in government owned housing developments. This would be incredibly…
I think Vienna somewhat functions like this, and it seems to be fine. Not that individuals can’t literally own property and rent it out, but that most housing options are government owned.
actually a lot is privately owned, but by law 2/3rd of every rental property must be offered as subsidized by the city. so in practice you own the building, but the city decides who gets to rent 2/3rds of it since the subsidized units are only given to people who have a low enough income.
Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore
#477Not really. Rent is too high. It's not a problem unique to America. Rents in Munich, for example, have also doubled since 2012. A three-room apartment often costs between €2,200 and €2,700 per month in this city. For reference, that's close to an entire net salary for many, even for someone in the top 20% of earners in Germany, where salaries are relatively low and taxes are high. The median net income here is around…
Also if you have children - I am not sure how it is for you in Germany, but in Poland landlords will not rent to anyone with children. Or ask twice as much because the assumption is if you don't have home already, you are suspicious...
in germany that's illegal. you are not allowed to deny families with children, and even small pets (small dogs, cats, hamsters, etc) can not be denied.
Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
Permitting admin is part of regulation, which in turn is required for construction.
yeah for sure and i didn't say that isn't a cost. i said it's a small part of the cost, almost negligible compared to the cost to actually build
Ah, yes, that mythical "cost to actually build."
As in, the cost to build things in ways that completely ignore regulations. Regulations about building materials that won't collapse, and won't catch fire, and won't give everyone living there cancer. Regulations about safe electrification; safe, clean, adequate water; wastewater systems that won't drown the lower floors in raw sewage.
Do you know about the Grenfell Tower disaster?
70 people died, 70 more were injured, and hundreds were left without places to live, because the builders didn't think it was important to follow regulations. So they could make an extra buck.
So tell us about what the "cost to actually build" is. Please. Just remember that cost isn't only denominated in dollars and pounds.
Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's so easy to make money without doing anything as a landlord, what's stopping you from doing it and donating the profits to charity?
Only the rich get richer. You have to be rich to acquire the free money rights. The poor don't get richer, or the system wouldn't work.
So pool your money with other poors and enter the infinite money game
Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my neck of the woods (New England), home prices have doubled since March of 2020. I have yet to read a comprehensive overview of how this happened and how we get out of it. Of course, people went nuts offering over the asking price when interest rates were super low so I understand, to some degree, that baselines were reset. But the current housing market doesn't feel sustainable. I don't understand how a proper m…
It is very simple. Housing is not built.
I'm not sure it is that simple. The housing units per capita numbers on first impression would suggest the number of housing units is keeping up with population growth, raising the question of why that isn't sufficient.
Some quick Googling for number of housing units in the US in 2006 and 2026 says 128 million then and 149 million.
Population then was 299 million and is 334 million now.
That's 16.4% more housing units and 15.4% more population. In terms of housing units per capita that's 0.45 now, and 0.43 in 2006.
Looking farther back it as 0.34 in the 1970 census, 0.39 in the 1980 census, and 0.41 in the 2000 census.
There was a dip from 2008 to 2016 from 0.428 to 0.419 then it resumed going up [1].