Considering how crazy expensive accommodations have become the last couple of years, concentrated in the hands of greedy corporations, landlords and how little politicians seem to care about this problem, do you think we will ever experience a real estate market crash that would bring those exorbitant prices back to Earth?
No, unless we separate housing from investment, it will never be affordable. I don’t foresee the political will to make it happen.
This is the biggest issue right here. Houses weren’t always investments and making them investments was a terrible idea that’s now difficult to fix.
Real estate has become a huge part of stock market and GDP figures. People’s retirement funds have become other people’s mortgage and rent payments. Affordable houses for some would mean economic decline for others, and no political party wants to create economic decline.
Maybe, but really the issue is construction of new houses. Cities are much cleaner now so people want to live in them. They used to be filled with factory smoke and animal feces.
Yes, more than now. No I don’t care that you saw some poop yesterday. The streets were literally caked with horse poop. You wouldn’t even notice dog poop.
And most jobs used to be physical, so the average person would have some experience in carpentry. If houses were too expensive, you would find a friend or relative with some expertise and build something yourself. So houses outside the city were cheap because you could build new ones, and houses inside the city sucked (and were cheap).
Part of high housing cost is due to the investment mindset and housing speculation. However, another part of high housing cost is that other people did put in the work to raise its value. Want to live in a clean, convenient neighborhood? Someone kept the place clean. Many businesses set up shop in the area to make it convenient to buy things and get things done. Certain passionate chef set up a wonderful restaurant so that you can just come by and enjoy good food. Some group of people, leader, or politician put in the political maneuverings that got certain ordinances passed or raised the bonds or taxes to build the public transportation. So over time as people continue to invest time, effort, labor to improve an area, it should be expected that the area becomes more expensive (and desirable).
deleted by creator
And it’s a flawless design if you ask me.
“no political party wants to create economic decline.”
I’m afraid I have to disagree.
Yeah economic decline is actually being sold as the solution to global warming. It’s called “cutting back” but really it means making everyone poorer.
Ah yes, because building renewable energy generation, electric vehicles, fortifying the electric grid, repurposing and developing land formerly used for mining and fracking… All things that happen for free.
The solution for global warming has never been “use less than you need” it’s always been “use what you have better”.
How about using what we want? Is that part of the plan? Or is it only what we need?
You’re out of your mind. You’re saying no profit of any kind is possible unless we exploit people forced to rent?
I know that’s not 100% what you’re saying, but that’s how it comes across…
Still trying to understand how everything has to be crushed under capitalism. Food. Health care. Housing. Travel. It all there to spin up cash.
Can’t wait till they figure out how to monetize air 🫠
Can’t wait till they figure out how to monetize air
Saw this at a Walgreens last week.
These are really popular with people traveling to Colorado ski resorts and getting altitude sickness. They’re useful to grab to avoid getting sick and combating the symptoms if you do.
I remembered those existed and grabbed one when the gf was having a tough time fighting covid
It’s honestly fantastic that you can buy oxygen in stores. Imagine if you needed oxygen fast and had to wait for a doctor’s appointment.
There are actually medical edgecases for stuff like this where they can be quite useful. That being said, a lot of people definitely also seem to view it as merely monetary, as there are literal oxygen bars in Vegas.
My first thought was “I wonder how sturdy these cans are, and what provisions they have against puncture”. Normally oxygen bottles are strong, and the oxygen is dissolved in a foam or something so it doesn’t leak out as fast from a puncture.
In the healthcare space they already have. If the wild fires keep up, it won’t be long before we have a Spaceballs or Lorax mogul in our midst.
Certain states such as Oregon (where I live) have acts in place regarding forests in general such as the FPA that should prevent the worst, or at least the destruction of forests whether imperatively or by wildfire, from happening.
However, when it comes to other places, I wouldn’t even be surprised unfortunately. On the California state border on Highway 199 crossing from Oregon where it’s mostly green, you see nothing but Redwoods burned and left in shambles for a few miles, it’s gives off goosebumps seeing a natural sight in this awful condition, let alone a supposedly protected state park.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that it isn’t capitalisim that is doing this. Blaming capitalism for fucking the 99% is like blaming science for inventing nuclear weapons. Capitalism is just the process. The focus is determined by key players. Frankly, I’d blame the availability of just about every industry in the stock market for what we are seeing. Companies used to be run by industry experts, who had a vested interest in their business being a sustainable long term asset that would provide wealth to their family for generations. Now, companies are run by “Line Go Up” CEOs appointed by a board of stock holders (mostly financial bros) who just want the stock to look real good before they sell it. There is no concern for the customer, workers, or the general populace beyond government mandated standards. All that matters is making money for people who couldn’t care less or know less about the industry.
Capitalism didn’t ruin food or housing. Capitalists did.
Where hexbear when you need them?
deleted by creator
Actually the stuff with the freeest (is that a word? How is that spelled??) markets tends to be the easiest to get and cheapest.
Medicine has uncontrolled price explosion because it’s an incredibly tightly constrained market. Food tends to be plentiful and cheap because it’s not very tightly constrained.
Yes, food did jump in price in the past couple of years … because of massive market interference when the governments dumped huge amounts of currency into the world, with only the upper classes having access to that new cash (it was given to corporations and to stockholders, leaving the lower class to watch their money devalue with no offset).
Housing is another tightly constrained market. You practically need positive permission from government in order to build anything, and there are tons of local constraints on what can be built.
I’m thinking of Boulder as an example where housing prices are skyrocketing, and construction is limited to a certain number of floors.
Capitalism is based on free markets. Where free markets exist goods become cheap and plentiful. But we have a lot of markets that aren’t free, for various reasons.
Investment is exactly what we need. We need more people to see building housing as a good investment, in order to get more housing.
The only other option is forcing people at gunpoint to build housing, and that only works for a couple of months then backfires.
But keeping supply low is more profitable. There isnt going to be an expansion of housing without a change in the rules of the game.
Removed by mod
Either you’re being a parody or you fit the stereotype. If the latter, what went so wrong in your life to make you care that much about money?
Judging by their bio they are a parody account. At least I hope so
Removed by mod
wealthy are simply more innovate and hard-working
Lol
I have a chronic illness. I’ve spent vast amounts of time, energy and money managing that. But go on and look down on others. All the great philosophies in the world and you choose this. Your family has failed you horribly.
Ah yes, shall I remind you that not everyone is as fortunate as you are. And your arrogant and self entitled attitude doesn’t help the picture. I pity individuals like you, who think so highly of themselves.
Maybe we, the apes who work from 9 to 5 should simply die so that there is no one to pay the rent for your shitty apartments or service them.
Do you think you will be at the same place if you were born in a ghetto or to parents who would not be able to provide you with education. There are plenty of smarter kids out there who are way more capable than you will ever be but they would never achieve their true potential because of lack of education, opportunities, parental support, social circle, place, country, etc.
But I guess self awareness is not your forte.
And if you really wanted to make a positive impact you would make your housing affordable but we all know that would never happen.
Removed by mod
Mmmm, fresh pasta 🍝
Removed by mod
Looks like Mr Smartwood’s plan worked!
I honestly think were heading for a total societal collapse. If the people with power and resources were the sort that were inclined to use it for good, they would have done it already. Given that we haven’t seen this, it’s reasonable that this accumulation at the top will continue unabated and that more and more people will fall into poverty and despair.
This is a recipe for revolution, and revolution is largely incompatible with stability, especially in the near term.
I wish this wasn’t the case. I suspect this century’'s deaths will dwarf last century’s.
Look at other countries. Huge slums / shanty towns get built and normalized long before revolution.
If you’re living in a plywood shack, but still have a phone with data, some games to play, ebt / food bank to eat, you’re not about to pick up arms. At least most people in that spot won’t.
Maybe you’re right, but it’s also possible that people in those places have been living with those conditions all their lives and it creates a kind of apathy. If you take away everything from people who thought they’d have a kind of middle-class future, we don’t quite know what that looks like yet. I suspect it won’t be exactly the same.
The younger generations today are already giving in to that apathy.
We’ll see what happens then. Apathy and despair is one possible combination. Anger and despair is another. They have very different results.
How many teenagers and twenty-somethings do you know? Do they seem angry or apathetic?
Ask anyone under 20 about climate change. Zero faith that we’re going to survive as a species
I think history is a better indicator of where human nature can go rather than current attitudes and trends.
Great point. Historically life was orders of magnitude more difficult than today. There wasn’t food banks or welfare. There wasn’t computers and phones and cheap weed and alcohol to keep folks occupied.
Average people could stand a chance against a current military with just numbers.
Zero of those things are true today, so historically there is zero chance of a revolution today.
Again, really great point.
there is no smartphone , video games and internet in the past, so people get angry easily
Plenty of countries in the ME have already gone through this. Iran & Lebanon used to have a nice and solid middle class and damn free societies compared to what’s there now. And all that within just the last century.
deleted by creator
It’s not about availability, it’s about willingness. If a revolution was attempted in America, like 80% of those who pick up arms would be gunned down in the first day.
Choosing between that, at just living the rest of your days eating beans and playing games on your phone in a shack? Let’s face it.
Beans and a shack is probably actually an acceptable standard to guarantee everyone. And given enough time and spare bits of wood you can make your shack a good shack.
But right now a lot of people are suffering without their beans and shack.
deleted by creator
No, not same difference.
The opponent is a modern military, and I have an assault rifle and Molotov cocktails.
If I’m starving to death, yeah maybe I take up arms. If I’ve at least got some food and a charged up phone? I might tell myself I’ll take up arms tomorrow, but again, let’s face it.
deleted by creator
No way, I think we are going to find out that circus is more important than bread, very soon. When people start needing to eat expired food and bugs, they won’t revolt as long as they have TikTok etc.
god i only hope.
Not without some real force or change, middle class has invested to much of their retirement into the housing market to allow the prices to tank. Those who have are not going to risk it for the have nots.
Imagine storing all of your nation’s wealth in real estate that is actively decaying by the minute instead of into companies that make products and provide jobs. What a stupid fucking idea.
Doesn’t matter. Houses are sold for prices as if they’re still mostly new. If you are good you can beat down the price by a cost of a new roof or a new heating system. Never both. No seller will ever acknowledge that renovation doesn’t make sense and the house should be teared down, actively lowering the land value. And they don’t have to. Someone else is around the corner to buy at any price, turning it into an overpriced rental unit.
That’s because in most cases, you’re paying for the cost of the land, not the house itself. Just look at how much unimproved land costs. The house itself is a depreciating asset, the land appreciates so much that it overwhelms the cost of the house. Even condos are subject to this, simply because they take up space (which is worth money) and their price is tied to traditional houses because they are (imperfect) substitutes.
No. Appraisals and tax assessments have a land value and a “structural improvement” values. Both of these are added together for the purchase price.
If there’s a building on the land that’s not derelict and has utilities- it’s almost always going to be worth more than the land value by itself.
There are def certain zip codes and/or a very large plot of land with a single house on it where the inverse is the case (land being worth more than improvement) but that is not the norm.
My entire city burned down a year and a half ago. The burned lots were selling for over half the price as surviving houses, right after the fire. Like they were only 20-30% off. Most of the value is in the land.
No. As the effects of climate change become worse, people will migrate to cooler places, which will only push up prices in those places. Poor people will be left to live in uninhabitable and uninsurable areas, while the rich will get to live in comfort.
Climate change is essentially a class struggle, like everything else in life. As long as the 1% don’t have to suffer, nothing will be done. To get the rich to do something about climate change, it will have to affect them directly.
I also think in addition to what you mentioned people don’t want to address that the population is a problem as well. The earth more than doubled the people living on it in 70 years from all of human history, that’s not just sustainable. You can hypothetically fit 20 people in a one bedroom but just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
I’m in a hot climate and it’s far more expensive here than it is in cooler parts of the country, and it continues to be that way. Your hypothesis would be for the distant future, but that’s not what’s driving costs right now and in the immediate future.
Sure, but the premise of the question is if “we will ever have affordable housing again in our lifetime?” There is no reason to believe there will be affordable housing right now or in the immediate future, and this comment hypothesises why climate change will cause affordable housing to continue to be problematic in the distant future as well.
limate change is essentially a class struggle, like everything else in life. As long as the 1% don’t have to suffer, nothing will be done. To get the rich to do something about climate change, it will have to affect them directly.
Exactly this. Elysium comes to mind, altough it won’t be a space station in orbit but probably a densely populated blue zone in Western Antarctica defended by turret boats or some shit.
No. Expensive housing is a genie in a bottle.
Once sufficient people have purchased a house at the high price, it would be in their interest for prices to remain high. Corporate entities that buy up houses will actively lobby to make sure housing prices stay high, and the average Joe who paid that much for a house will be happy it stays that way.
I’m not so sure. Large lobbies have greater economic power than us average people, but they aren’t strong enough to defy macroeconomic trends. There are many factors that could turn and cause prices to collapse, we just don’t know when or if they will occur.
The only factors that can cause the collapse of a captured market are regulation, total market collapse, or revolution.
Total market collapse is very broad.
Fair enough.
“Second Great Depression, because we didn’t learn shit from the first one.”
I think were closer to seeing people be forced to rent every comoddity they need to live than we are to seeing full home ownership.
Removed by mod
That’s just decentralized feudalism where we work even more for less
They already allow children to inherit companies, why not just return us to surfdom.
“You’ll own nothing and be happy” - World Economic Forum
They really did go mask off with that one. I don’t understand anyone could’ve checked that out and signed off on it without going “surely people are going to see right through this?”. The answer is either apathy or malice, but both are equally bad for us in the end.
The solution is simple, but will never happen. Make it illegal to own a home you don’t live in.
Or at the very least make taxes paid proportionally more for each home you own past 1
What about apartments? Dorms? Would that make being homeless illegal?
Canada banned foreign ownership, and a bunch of local shell companies popped up. So it is not as simple as it sounds.
Canada didn’t ban shit. The Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act is just a token gesture so that politicians can say they did something.
Since permanent residents and private corporations can still buy real-estate property, in practical terms literally nothing has changed.
If there is political will, there is a way. The problem is often political will.
deleted by creator
If you don’t live in the building and it’s for permanent accomodation, you don’t own any part of it. Very simple. Feel free to rent out part of the building though if you do.
Whatever mental gymnastics you did to get from there to homelessness being illegal don’t apply.
|Make it illegal to own a home you don’t live in -> Feel free to rent out part of the building though if you do.
Wouldn’t renting out a building you don’t live in be illegal? Or is AirBnB a loophole?
Wouldn’t renting out a building you don’t live in be illegal
Yes. That’s the point. You can own it if it’s your residence even if someone else lives there too.
Also you don’t seem to comprehend the concept of bed and breakfast
So the only apartments in this brave new world would have the landlords literally living in them with you. That doesn’t sound like an upgrade to me.
Your grasp of the distinction between apartment and building is as abysmal as every other concept you mention.
Also you seem to be equally ignorant of the idea of owning an apartment and of social housing.
Ah, you are just a common troll. Got it. I was a bit tired, so I fed you after midnight. Won’t make that mistake again. Good night.
This is so stupid. The fact that people upvote this makes me want to go back to reddit
I think the people here are young and well meaning but don’t have much real world experience yet.
People here are extreme i went to reddit but quality of conversation is shit. I enjoy tildes a lot i have invite if you want quality of conversation there is amazing.
That’s not extreme. The extreme answer involves more guillotines.
I bought an apartment about 15 years ago. I finally finished paying it about 3 years ago, and recently got an offer to move to Ontario. With the current house prices and what I was offered there (about 80k), I could barely make rent for my family. I really wanted to move but had to say no because of stupid absurd rent prices. What’s weird is that if I wanted to rent the place I bought I would not be able to afford it either. This is bullshit.
There are 2 big obstacles we need to overcome. The first is corporate ownership of residential property. This needs to go away.
The second big issue, we need to build higher density housing, and get rid of the enormous parking spaces that take up our downtowns. Not everyone needs a house. And you can absolutely build medium density housing that doesn’t feel cramped. Sure, living in an apartment is not perfect, but you are closer to the places you want to go, and public transportation is more feasible. It’s a win-win for everyone.
The problem with high density housing is that the quality is shit. The quality is shit with lower density housing too, but things like thin walls in apartments goes a long way to people wanting to join in the sprawl. Developers fight tooth and nail against any regulations that are focused on QOL or environmental improvements (like “passive house” standards) and promise that they will make it cost far more than necessary if they are so burdened.
Sounds like the solution is to nationalize a good chunk of the home construction industry and run it at cost
Ultimately, change will only happen when the institutions start listening to the people. But we know that won’t happen as long as corporations can buy out and bribe the institutions meant to regulate them.
This is kind of just something that krept into my mind but I think with a slowing birthrate that we may just end up with too many homes at some point in the next 25 years.
deleted by creator
If you’re talking about the US, the slowing birthrate is compensated for by immigration. This is what drives immigration policy and why the US hasn’t fallen into the same demographic slump as Japan has, and China soon will.
Add to this that much of the tight housing market is driven by people around the world investing in US real estate. Some estimates are as high as 30% of homes sitting empty, held by foreign investors, just appreciating.
Between these two things, we are extremely far from being able to visualize too much housing. I hope we get there, though. Because it would fix the high pricing and allow us to demolish some of the oldest, shittiest housing which is only still around because the market is so nuts.
It’ll probably even out as we may not have enough people to build them?
Perhaps, but in an energy-scarce world, who would be able to afford living in an old, inefficient house? I obviously hope to be wrong but increasing material price and labour might alone offset whatever price decrease the extra inventory of a decreasing population might bring. I hope to be wrong, ofc.
My old place was a cold, stone cottage and was a nightmare to keep heated.
The kitchen at one point was measuring 6°C and that was with the heating on in the winter.
We got out of there in December 2019 and I’m so glad we did, because with COVID, Brexit and the war, house prices went bananas, energy bills went through the roof and interest rates have increased massively.
We could never have afforded this place today. I really feel for young folks today, we bought our first home at 33 years old after years of saving and that was in the time of almost no interest - it would be impossible now.
Yeah but the market is going to have to absolutely tank first. There’s a lot of money in that bubble, and it’s going to be fucking painful when it does. But it’ll get there.
When it tanks people would be laid off and have no money for houses. Basically 2007 all over again. The rich would swoop up all the cheap real estate.
And the cycle would repeat a-fucking-gain, with the poor wanting silly things like owning their own land or homes and decent living wages being blamed for the next burst bubble
After the climate mass deaths, migrations and/or wars, there should be plenty of land.
Although it might not be habitable.
Plenty of unoccupied land, but not unowned.
Perhaps, but what is ownership without a state to enforce it? Companies/landlords would need to occupy and defend it themselves.
The problem is not affordable housing, there’s plenty of that in the US, the problem is getting people to states where housing is affordable without significant drops in quality of life due to lack of access to services and such.
Like, you could buy land in Detroit for the price of a decent car, put a trailer on it and you’re already on the property ladder, but you’re in Detroit.
This sounds great, but when people start moving, pricing goes up. There’s too much investing and too little self-ownership of housing.
The rise would be slow if it’s spread out. In my country it’s one of the better ways to build equity. Buy where it’s cheaper and wait for prices to go up.
Then sell it in 10 years and buy where you want to live, you’ll have atleast half the money and definitely more than what you paid for it
I can’t speak to other markets but in California, the housing bubble is in part supported by investment from around the world. Chinese and Russian nouveau rich are buying homes in CA because it’s a safe place to keep their money relative to their other options. They might even just leave them empty and watch them appreciate. It’s disgusting, when people are struggling like hell just to live.
Perhaps the state could regulate this and ban international purchases or empty homes but I highly doubt it since the horse has left the barn decades ago and this would deeply impact many rich people, and those people have influence. It would also tank the home values of many average Americans, which would be deeply unpopular as many of those folks are banking on taking that value with them to Mexico or Ecuador to retire on. So this regulation would be bad for the rich and unpopular at large. It would help the young and the poor, the two chronically underrepresented groups.
So unless we can change the entire world order, I don’t see this wholly going away. Can we make it better? I think so. We need more supply, and it needs to be high density and low cost. Those are not insurmountable. But right now, private developers and the government don’t have what it takes to do anything.
I know someone who works for a low income housing non profit and they manage 8 big apartment buildings that their non profit built or bought and they operate them as homes for low income people. They are funded by philanthropists large and small as well as some public money.
If we could find a way to direct more money to such things, we could make a real impact. Perhaps a wealth tax that goes directly to such housing.
But even then, it’s like MediCal - it will only help those in abject poverty. It wont help my cousin who is making $125k and still can’t afford to buy a home. Middle class will never get help, basically, and this is why you see them moving elsewhere.
It’s not just the Russians and Chinese. In rural wine country where I grew up, more than a third of the properties have been bought up by millionaires that visit maybe two weeks out of the year, hollowing out the town, and gentrifying anyone who was middle class or lower out of the area. Another third of what used to be rental housing is now air BnBs. Teachers and EMTs can’t afford to live within an hour drive, so public service quality has cratered. None of the kids I went to high school with still live in the area (although many commute in, as they tried to make their careers where they grew up).
While recently we’ve seen more Chinese, the Russians haven’t really made an impact. The trend (in this locality), however, was absolutely started by New York financiers, and had been ongoing for at least 15 years before foreign investment capital showed up.
This is what irritates me when people say there isn’t enough housing supply. There are 16 million vacant homes in the US. It’s not a supply issue. It’s a class and economic issue.
I know it sounds radical, but I support a law would force landlords with property that has been vacant more than six months to offer it to section 8 recipients as a rental. I think this would cause a significant positive adjustment in the market, making housing more affordable and expanding access to those who need it most. Many landlords refuse to rent to section 8 whatsoever, so if they still want to avoid those tenants, they’d have to ensure their property is rented, opening up more housing and driving down rents.
+1 to everything you said
deleted by creator
Yes, that too.
