Live data from Hacker News

Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org

91–100 of 114 posts

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#91
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't really own it because of the property tax. Unless you live in Malta or a handful of other countries you are effectively renting from the state.

If paying property taxes is considered "renting from the state", then I'll be glad to pay the $600 a month in rent in order for the state and my county to maintain the roads, sewers, drains, school district and everything around me that allows me to enjoy my home and participate in society.

Exactly, a house in the middle of nowhere, with no infrastructure, quickly becomes worthless.

If anything, property taxes could be considered ‘maintenance’, which is an inevitable part of ownership. Nobody likes paying for the maintenance work, but you have to, otherwise the house falls down.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A socialized housing market replaces exorbitant prices with a lottery; public-subsidized housing in Stockholm has a waiting list of years. The way to stabilize the demand curve is to increase to supply.

you are correct that we need to increase supply, and socialized housing creates more supply. great idea

Socialized housing is a management technique. It does not inherently create housing. Read about Stockholm's situation if you are interested in learning about the topic.

It is indisputable that there have been successful socialized housing schemes. It is also indisputable there are successful free-market housing systems; for example, Minneapolis.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way back when I started my career - I almost COULDN'T take a good job in Boston, because I couldn't figure out how I could literally live there long enough to get my first few paychecks to pay for my rent. I decided that I'd just go into credit card debt and live in the crappiest hotel that I could find until I had enough money to pay the first/last/security deposit. Luckily, I found some shady landlord on Craigslist…

Easy fix, the department of defense has been doing it for years in Southwest DC. Just build corporate housing. Then we can have little Amazon towns where all your needs are met and everyone lives in perfect harmony in downtown San Fransisco.

You're so close to realizing the point but the difference is between a dystopian future and a future worth living.

Corporate housing, and worker housing in general, is what we're bouldering towards. The only way to extract further wealth from most of the population is for them not to own anything. It's the Western equivalent of South Asian brick kilns.

What we need instead is social housing like Vienna [1]. Americans in particular always associate such thing with ghettoes and Section 8.

And here's another problem: US corporations already keep employees and pay them less with the fear of losing health insurance. That's why the system exists. How much worse would it be if it's also your housing you'll lose?

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41VJudBdYXY&t=242s

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#94

Maybe my feed is biased. But, I’ve been seeing good arguments lately that “The rent is too damned high!” is largely a problem created by voters. And, I don’t know how we’re going to fix that. Ex: https://youtu.be/yoT76zITRx8 TLDR: 60% of both left and right wing voters like rent control. 98% of economists oppose it. Even liberal lefty economists. Even though they support price controls elsewhere like utility monopoli…

[dead]

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#95

Maybe my feed is biased. But, I’ve been seeing good arguments lately that “The rent is too damned high!” is largely a problem created by voters. And, I don’t know how we’re going to fix that. Ex: https://youtu.be/yoT76zITRx8 TLDR: 60% of both left and right wing voters like rent control. 98% of economists oppose it. Even liberal lefty economists. Even though they support price controls elsewhere like utility monopoli…

Rent control doesn’t “feel good” — it allows for housing stability in a volatile economic environment. Without rent control, I would be de facto evicted from my home with a 50–100% rent increase from the recent AI boom. (This is literally happening to other folks in my neighborhood.) Why on earth would I vote against it? Because some economist said so? (And no, it’s not 98%, you made that figure up.)

Fortunately, you can have rent control and incentivize housing construction. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#96
post #91
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If paying property taxes is considered "renting from the state", then I'll be glad to pay the $600 a month in rent in order for the state and my county to maintain the roads, sewers, drains, school district and everything around me that allows me to enjoy my home and participate in society.

Exactly, a house in the middle of nowhere, with no infrastructure, quickly becomes worthless. If anything, property taxes could be considered ‘maintenance’, which is an inevitable part of ownership. Nobody likes paying for the maintenance work, but you have to, otherwise the house falls down.

You are claiming infrastructure can only be maintained by a government? That's a ridiculous assertion. Most of the work is outsourced to contractors. They are acting as mediocre project managers, not the masters of inscrutable infrastructure technology.

The state has a monopoly on certain types of infrastructure that it ultimately sustains through the threat of repossession. It uses that monopoly to racketeer property owners under the threat of repossessing their property.

If what you are claiming is true, then why does Malta have higher property values than countries with property tax?

https://www.maltasothebysrealty.com/property-for-sale/in/sli...

I would agree to a property tax if the voting systems worked fairly at a sufficiently granular level, but they don't. They are farces maintained by criminal organizations beyond a certain scale.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#97
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, a house in the middle of nowhere, with no infrastructure, quickly becomes worthless. If anything, property taxes could be considered ‘maintenance’, which is an inevitable part of ownership. Nobody likes paying for the maintenance work, but you have to, otherwise the house falls down.

You are claiming infrastructure can only be maintained by a government? That's a ridiculous assertion. Most of the work is outsourced to contractors. They are acting as mediocre project managers, not the masters of inscrutable infrastructure technology. The state has a monopoly on certain types of infrastructure that it ultimately sustains through the threat of repossession. It uses that monopoly to racketeer propert…

[deleted]

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy fix, the department of defense has been doing it for years in Southwest DC. Just build corporate housing. Then we can have little Amazon towns where all your needs are met and everyone lives in perfect harmony in downtown San Fransisco.

Could even include Amazon store credits in the compensation package!* * Non-transferrable, no cash value, forfeit upon separation, taxes on items purchased with credits must still be paid in USD by user

As long as "no cash value" means they don't get summed in topline total comp, and that they can't be used to circumvent minimum wage, I don't see an obvious problem.

If it's a bad offer, it's a bad offer. If there aren't enough good offers, forbidding a weird benefit probably won't fix that anyway.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#99
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, a house in the middle of nowhere, with no infrastructure, quickly becomes worthless. If anything, property taxes could be considered ‘maintenance’, which is an inevitable part of ownership. Nobody likes paying for the maintenance work, but you have to, otherwise the house falls down.

You are claiming infrastructure can only be maintained by a government? That's a ridiculous assertion. Most of the work is outsourced to contractors. They are acting as mediocre project managers, not the masters of inscrutable infrastructure technology. The state has a monopoly on certain types of infrastructure that it ultimately sustains through the threat of repossession. It uses that monopoly to racketeer propert…

You are part of a society. You exist and thrive because of that society. Otherwise you’d have had to fend for yourself: no healthcare, no education, no roads, no refuse collection, no security, etc. etc.

People who think they have no obligation to contribute to the running of society are delusional and utterly selfish.

I am assuming you’re American, because it is always Americans who have this selfish individualistic view of the world. Seemingly all cooperation or altruism is communism. It’s a national sickness.

Government exists to do the difficult things that individuals or corporations can’t or won’t do. Like build a road network, provide security, or educate the nation’s children (for all, not just you). They have the buying power of a nation, something an individual, local group, or company could t achieve. And they often have the legal authority to do things that individuals or companies cannot (compulsory purchase of land when building a railway or road, for example)

And the most effective way of paying for it is through a ‘national insurance scheme’ aka tax.

And honestly, who cares about Malta? That’s just blatant whataboutism. Malta is a country of 500,000 people. How they raise funds to pay for their infrastructure isn’t important. The point is, they have to do it one way or another. A tourist destination like Malta could be better off with a tourism tax (assuming there are more hotel rooms than residential properties). The end result is the same.

If you want a functioning society it is better to do it formally, rather than ad-hoc (for all but the smallest societies). Because otherwise the bureaucratic processes end up being repeated and become burdensome and in the worst cases descends into factionalism and tribalism. And the ad-hoc approach would certainly lead to inconsistency of provision. That can range from ‘a bit inconvenient’ to societal breakdown between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’.

Is Government perfect? Of course not, but replacing it with an anarchic “I’m alright Jack” free-for-all is madness. It is better to work on the focus of what government is for and how to build the correct incentives for high performance.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#100
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are claiming infrastructure can only be maintained by a government? That's a ridiculous assertion. Most of the work is outsourced to contractors. They are acting as mediocre project managers, not the masters of inscrutable infrastructure technology. The state has a monopoly on certain types of infrastructure that it ultimately sustains through the threat of repossession. It uses that monopoly to racketeer propert…

You are part of a society. You exist and thrive because of that society. Otherwise you’d have had to fend for yourself: no healthcare, no education, no roads, no refuse collection, no security, etc. etc. People who think they have no obligation to contribute to the running of society are delusional and utterly selfish. I am assuming you’re American, because it is always Americans who have this selfish individualistic…

You didn't read my post objectively. My point is that the current governments, with the exception of some local governments, do not represent or serve their constituencies; in fact, they actively subvert them. I'm assuming your European, that's especially true for you.
Post reply on HN