You have to restrict investors buying up that newly built housing too.
Homes for people. Not investors.
Homes for people. Not investors.
And here I thought people who want to live in houses add to demand for housing.
Investors buy houses that people want to live in. If people don't want to live someplace, you won't see any investors there either.
Desire is a necessary component in demand, but it also requires willingness at a given price point. If houses are selling for $1,000,000 and you only have $500,000 to spend, then no matter how much you dream every night about having a home, you are not a contributor to demand.
There are two exceptions:
- Surplus: When the price is too high and is unable to fall. Where supply exceeds demand. This manifests as there being houses trying to be sold, but that nobody wants to buy.
- Shortage: When the price is too low and is unable to rise. Where demand exceeds supply. This manifests in non-price mechanisms taking over. You might, for example, see houses get sold via lottery as a potentially higher bidder is prevented (e.g. the government stepped in and started enforcing a price ceiling) from offering more.
There may be some argument that there is a housing surplus in some markets, where houses are for sale but never find a willing buyer. However, it seems most houses eventually sell. There is likely no argument for there being a housing shortage by the technical definition. If you have unlimited money, you can surely buy any house on the market.
There are always exceptions, but it is pretty safe to say that supply and demand are finding equilibrium in most housing markets.
and so how do you decide who gets it?
1) morally. Alice deserves it because her intention is more pure.
2) financially. Bob gets it, because he can pay more for it than alice.
Which choice above you make as a policy direction is a reflection of your world view. I'm voting for 2), but i can understand the POV of 1), even tho i disagree with it.
the utopian answer is to build two houses. But we don't live in utopia.
The constraints faced today is real (paper or physical). You can't wish it away, and you can't say it's "easier" to just build two houses.
Of course we can stop collusion. What are you even talking about?
Great! Now we're talking real solutions that can actually help people :)
> Of course we can stop collusion. What are you even talking about?
Besides laws and regulation (which already exists and clearly isn't enough), what is your suggested solution for stopping collusion?
Price fixing is/was already illegal in the US (if I understand the Sherman Act correctly), yet the largest landlords in the US was found to engage in price-fixing and artificially raising rents. https://www.propublica.org/article/justice-department-sues-l...
And besides just having "real estate investors" slurping up all housing, people could own one house then rent out parts of it, or a collection of people could own their apartment building together, there are many other ways to make housing work that doesn't involve huge companies owning large parts of the market. A little bit of nuance goes a long way.
It's already a thing, called house hacking. Tough luck if you're a couple that wants a complete unit instead of a room in someone else's house.
> a collection of people could own their apartment building together
That's called a co-op or a condo (the difference is a bit fuzzy to me). This still involves ownership and upkeep of an asset, which many people prefer not to do.
> huge companies owning large parts of the market
Make it publicly-owned, for all I care. Or let it be individual landlords. Or forbid a single company from owning more than 5% of the stock in a city. As long as it's market rate and abundant and competitive, it literally does not matter. More houses = cheaper housing.
> yet the largest landlords in the US was found to engage in price-fixing and artificially raising rents
Your own link shows that we know this happened because there was a Justice Department investigation about the practice. How can you say enforcement isn't happening.
Because the down payment you put into your purchased home could've been put into the stock market and grown faster than property values (this is historically true).
Because you don't want the headache of home maintenance.
Because in the 21st century, job stability doesn't exist so it's a big risk to buy a home fifteen minutes from your current job that might be an hour from your new job after you get fired so a CEO can get more golden parachutes.
Because you might have to change cities a year from now.
My wife and I rented for a long time because it was better than owning for us.
Many landlords seem to expect to pay their mortgage and property taxes and maintenance with the rental income, and still net a profit, if r/landlord is to be believed.
If there was no profit there would be no landlords. Some might say that's great. But it would be a world with less flexibility, with fewer choices. Don't like your job and want to move? Split up with your partner and need someplace to live? Moved to a new city and don't know where you want to put down roots yet? At college for 4 years? Don't want to deal with house maintenance? "F** you, buy a house anyway". That's what we'd have if there was no rental housing.
The actual numbers might be more like rent $1400 vs mortgage $1000. After property taxes, insurance, and maintenance there might be $50 left. A handsome 3.5% profit, rising to maybe 6-7% if you include principal paydown. This is hardly a money-printing machine. It's a steady return for taking on some risk.
Kind of an unhelpful tangent to the discussion, really.
You can buy a boat for $10 or rent one for $9. Assuming you really want a boat, would you buy or rent? Do my numbers reflect reality? Do they have a bearing on the choice you make?
Renting has annoyances but it also has flexibility. A flat "more expensive" is staring at one tree and missing the whole forest of tradeoffs. Way more people would choose to spend $50/month for that flexibility versus $700/month.
that doesn't sound plausible. May be for a select few properties that are in some unique circumstance (e.g., the seller of the property would sell underpriced because they needed quick sale).
And often, in arguments like these, the rent is the rent, but the mortgage is purely the interest on the loan, and doesn't count the maintenance cost, and doesn't count the deposit required (which has a cost, ala the cost of capital). If you added up all these costs, it exceeds rent.
Still, things can go either way. And well renting is lot more flexible and less risky. So there is really nothing wrong with that option existing. And many times it is the better pick of the two.
Sure if you don't count the cost of risk for the tenant (of needing to move due to job loss, unexpected maintenance bills) then renting is more expensive.
This only holds until the percentage owned by the investors becomes a monopolistic chunk. At that point the investors would rather leave some apartments empty rather than see rents go down.
See: all the current RealPage lawsuits