• nednobbins@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The core problem, which causes that shortage, is that we have conflicting views on what housing is for.

    On one hand, we want housing to be a right. On the other hand we want our houses to be good investments.

    Those are conflicting goals. We need to pick one and be ready to sacrifice the other.

    If you want your house to be a good investment, it needs to appreciate in value at a rate higher than inflation. The only way for that to happen is if housing keeps getting more expensive on a real money basis. That’s a fancy way of saying that housing will be a bigger and bigger chunk of income.

    Every single policy that reduces the cost of housing also degrades its effectiveness as an investment. If people can get housing any time they want, they have no incentive to pay somebody a bunch of money to someone hoping to fund their retirement by downsizing.

    Your suggesting to legalize more housing will destroy the ability of homeowners to make a profit off their homes. Even though I stand to earn huge amounts of money from the appreciation of my own house I would support that, but I’m afraid I’m in the minority. The US has a 65.9% home ownership rate and for most people their home is their single biggest asset. If we address the housing shortage those people will all see their single biggest investment asset drop in value.

    • Roboticide@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, boo hoo?

      I bought a house, not because I wanted an investment, but I wanted a place to live. Fuck the CCP, but man were they on the money saying “Houses are for living in,” their current, ironic, housing bubble aside. Houses are homes. You want an investment vehicle, buy stocks or bonds.

      If the people who see housing as an investment are outweighed by the people who simply want an affordable home as a right, it’s become an unsustainable and unjust privilege and needs to be rectified.

      Also, I think this ignores the larger factors of: poor zoning due to NIMBY-friendly policies at the local level, and corporate greed as companies, not people, buy up supply. Solve these two problems and we don’t have to pick between housing as a right and housing as an investment.

      • nednobbins@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem with this plan is that it assumes that we’re only hurting some cigar puffing Wall Street fat cats but, in reality, the pain would be felt much more broadly.

        In the US, the majority of people own the home they live in. https://www.propertyshark.com/info/us-homeownership-rates-by-state-and-city/ Those aren’t big corporation or greedy landlords, they’re 50+ percent of the population of each state. Some of those people are billionaires and many of them have below median income. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-assets-make-wealth/

        Those super wealthy people that we’re happy to throw under the bus don’t have their wealth tied up in their homes. Their real estate investments tend to be small fractions of their portfolios. The ones that would get hit the hardest are the ones with less than $100k. I’m glad that you’re in a position where you can survive a large financial loss on your house but a lot of people don’t have that luxury.

        Any plan that just kills their investments without some way to take care of those people will create a disaster. Maybe we could bump up Social Security somehow? That would involve significant tax increases but it could plug the gap.

        Huge swaths of our economy are set up to assume that houses are financial assets. NIMBY policies are largely about maintaining or increasing the financial value of the real estate. The corporations buying up all the housing are kind of a red herring. The US has one of the highest owner occupancy rates in the world. There has been a slight (about 1.6%) in non-own occupied housing and only a fraction of those 1.6% are corporations. So it’s technically true that corporations hold more residential real estate but they hold so little of it that it’s unlikely to be a primary factor in home pricing or availability.

        As I said elsewhere, the data is very clear on the matter. We don’t have a lot of empty housing inventory being horded by greedy investors. By any reasonable measure, we have a housing shortage.

    • the post of tom joad
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      On the other hand we want our houses to be good investments.

      I don’t.

      I understand you’re speaking in general terms here but no, i think having housing being tied to investments at all is a terrible idea we’ve just normalized.

      The flip side of course we’ve experienced, like 2008 when the market went sour, putting people out of home and destroying retirement funds

      • nednobbins@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think it’s a good idea either but we live in a society that effectively decided that we do want houses to be investments decades ago. That’s entrenched now and many people bet their life savings on the promise that their house would be a good investment.

        If we change that without taking those people into account they’re all screwed. While some rich people would get screwed in that process a whole lot of poor people would get screwed too.