Stopping corporations from buying homes lowers demand for owned houses but equally reduces supply of rentable houses, because that is what corporations do with them. So you are hurting the people who can’t afford to buy to help the statistically richer people who can.
Lowering interest rates just increases demand and thus prices which helps the rich people who currently own homes while being a wash for the statistically poorer people buying first time homes because they don’t care if it’s the bank or the seller who gets their money.
The only real fix is to increase supply. Build new houses or renovate abandoned/unused buildings into housing of some sort. Even building new apartment complexes helps because it gives more options to people deciding between buying or renting.
Seriously… And there isn’t exactly an issue with finding places to rent, the issue is with what those greedy fucking corporations ask for rent. $3000/mo for a tiny p.o.s “luxury” apartment, or a shack mislabeld as a house is an absolute joke. If I had that kind of money I wouldn’t need to rent ffs…
If the corporations are asking market rates for rent then it doesn’t matter if they are greedy or not, they will set rent at the same level an individual would.
If they are setting rent above the market rent then you can just go somewhere else for cheaper so it isn’t a problem for you.
If they don’t buy the property the supply is higher… meaning prices come down and individuals can purchase at lower costs. They artificially jack up the demand on an equal supply.
That’s only looking at house demand. It’s true as long as you only look at prices for purchasing houses, which is an activity done by relatively rich people. You are indeed helping people with enough wealth to purchase a house.
My point is that the corporations are not just sitting on these houses, they are turning them into rentals. So they are increasing the supply of rentals, lowering the price to rent. And renters are typically poorer than the people with enough wealth to purchase a house.
So the ban would help the relatively richer people and hurt the poorer.
And the steps of buying “under prices” homes alorithmically inevitably (and intentionally) means they are manipulating the housing market to NOT correct.
I.E., if prices start to fall, corps swoop in to pick up supply because their estimates say these properties will be worth more. Their act of doing it insures that it happens, and individuals are forced to compete if they want housing security.
The same goes for the rental market. Even without the blatant collusion tools already exposed, Corp market evaluations to min/max their rental prices ensures that others follow suit.
It’s market manipulation all around by those that have enough capital to force everyone else to play by their rules.
Everything is at market rates, what is changing is supply and demand. Fewer houses available to rent = higher rents. That is the market. If there are more houses available to rent, rent will be lower than it otherwise would be.
The market is not “places to rent”, it’s “places to live.” If the cost of buying a home falls, the cost of renting a home will fall as well to compete. If what you are saying is true, the cost of renting should have gone down as more private equity gets into the residential market. The opposite has happened.
You understand that when someone buys a home to live in, demand shrinks along with the supply, right?
The market is not “places to rent”, it’s “places to live.” If the cost of buying a home falls, the cost of renting a home will fall as well to compete.
If you look at the market as “places to live” then banning corporate home purchasing does nothing to supply or demand and thus does not change the price at all. There are still the same number of people who need housing.
If what you are saying is true, the cost of renting should have gone down as more private equity gets into the residential market. The opposite has happened.
Everything we’re talking about is relative to what prices would be otherwise. Rent has increased because there was massive inflation, that doesn’t prove or disprove the impact of corporate homeownership.
Taking (corporate) buyers out of the market is what reducing demand means. Not to mention the corporate buyers are the ones buying up real estate so they can profit off the difference between the rent they charge and the loans they pay off. They’re very much unnecessary middlemen. I’m not saying smaller landlords don’t do that too, but corporate involvement is one of the reasons investor buying power so heavily outweighs resident buying power.
Real estate values have been massively outpacing inflation for decades. Inflation is normal, and has always been a force in economics. Such a huge portion of the middle and working class being unable to own a house is not normal, and since we haven’t had a population explosion or a collapse of the construction industry, a bubble is the best explanation.
Taking (corporate) buyers out of the market is what reducing demand means.
The corporate buyers are just buying the houses to rent out. They are switching the home from owned to rented. The corporation isn’t a living person who lives in the house they bought. They only impact demand in the amount they switch, which only matters if you’re splitting up owned vs rented, because that’s what they change. If you’re combining all housing demand to be all people who need housing, the corporations have zero demand for housing, they don’t impact overall demand at all.
Not to mention the corporate buyers are the ones buying up real estate so they can profit off the difference between the rent they charge and the loans they pay off. They’re very much unnecessary middlemen. I’m not saying smaller landlords don’t do that too, but corporate involvement is one of the reasons investor buying power so heavily outweighs resident buying power.
There’s always a profit motive at any level, prices are going to be a result of market forces, we don’t give them extra because they’re a corporation. If a corporation is acting monopolistically, that should obviously be banned, and it is.
There’s a larger structural question on whether ALL landlording is “unnecessary middlemen” but that as a solution would be such a huge change and involve seizing property and such that I think that’s outside the realm of the possible. If we’re allowing some landlords, profit is just going to be part of rental payments as it already is.
You’re fucking full of it. Nobody but the rich can afford to fucking buy RIGHT NOW. That would make houses more affordable so NORMAL WORKING PEOPLE people CAN buy instead of rent. But because it’s not a perfect solution for everyone we shouldn’t do it? You sound like a corporate toady, bro.
My solution of building more houses to increase supply helps everyone who needs a place to live and hurts the people who own one or more houses right now.
Your solution helps the people rich enough to have a down payment on hand while hurting those too poor to be able to afford a house.
If we are talking about helping “NORMAL WORKING PEOPLE” my solution does that and yours does not.
There is no reality where we can build fast enough to actually lower demand enough that prices lower. At least not in southern California, where I live.
Yes, we need to build. But realistically, new construction is snapped up at exorbitant “luxury” prices. People always claim it “frees up other supply” of older homes, but that’s complete bullshit.
Yes, if suddenly 30 high rise condos buildings just appeared at the same time, prices may actually be favorably impacted. But reality says that builders are going to maximize their returns, and avoid flooding the market with new homes all at once.
There is no reality where we can build fast enough to actually lower demand enough that prices lower. At least not in southern California, where I live.
There is no reality where banning corporations from buying houses lowers prices either. Prices are going up in the medium term no matter what. All the more reason we have to actually solve the actual problem.
Increase supply of homes by taking residentially zoned property out of the hands of corporations who are using it to extract wealth and use it as collateral to amass more wealth. This is an incredibly basic concept that you clearly understand and went so far out of the way to argue against that I’m actually impressed.
You are only thinking of people rich enough to be able to buy a house. I’m thinking of all people who need housing. If you want to reduce the cost to live overall, and not just shift it from rich homeowners to poorer renters, you need to increase supply, period.
Me, I’m saying if you ban the practice of buying houses to turn into rentals, you are reducing the number of rentals thus increasing the cost to rent.
You are right that nobody is talking about renters, but that is the problem. If you only focus on bringing house prices down, you settle on a solution that brings house prices down while increasing rent prices. You think you’re helping poor people buy houses but you’re actually helping upper middle class people buy while screwing the poor people who still have to rent.
Stopping corporations from buying homes lowers demand for owned houses but equally reduces supply of rentable houses, because that is what corporations do with them. So you are hurting the people who can’t afford to buy to help the statistically richer people who can.
Lowering interest rates just increases demand and thus prices which helps the rich people who currently own homes while being a wash for the statistically poorer people buying first time homes because they don’t care if it’s the bank or the seller who gets their money.
The only real fix is to increase supply. Build new houses or renovate abandoned/unused buildings into housing of some sort. Even building new apartment complexes helps because it gives more options to people deciding between buying or renting.
You’re very wrong. Hedge funds buy houses to rent them out at market rates, which go up as home prices go up. They aren’t running a charity.
The current situation is good only for those who can afford multiple investment properties, and it’s at everyone else’s expense.
Seriously… And there isn’t exactly an issue with finding places to rent, the issue is with what those greedy fucking corporations ask for rent. $3000/mo for a tiny p.o.s “luxury” apartment, or a shack mislabeld as a house is an absolute joke. If I had that kind of money I wouldn’t need to rent ffs…
If the corporations are asking market rates for rent then it doesn’t matter if they are greedy or not, they will set rent at the same level an individual would.
If they are setting rent above the market rent then you can just go somewhere else for cheaper so it isn’t a problem for you.
If they don’t buy the property the supply is higher… meaning prices come down and individuals can purchase at lower costs. They artificially jack up the demand on an equal supply.
That’s only looking at house demand. It’s true as long as you only look at prices for purchasing houses, which is an activity done by relatively rich people. You are indeed helping people with enough wealth to purchase a house.
My point is that the corporations are not just sitting on these houses, they are turning them into rentals. So they are increasing the supply of rentals, lowering the price to rent. And renters are typically poorer than the people with enough wealth to purchase a house.
So the ban would help the relatively richer people and hurt the poorer.
And the steps of buying “under prices” homes alorithmically inevitably (and intentionally) means they are manipulating the housing market to NOT correct.
I.E., if prices start to fall, corps swoop in to pick up supply because their estimates say these properties will be worth more. Their act of doing it insures that it happens, and individuals are forced to compete if they want housing security.
The same goes for the rental market. Even without the blatant collusion tools already exposed, Corp market evaluations to min/max their rental prices ensures that others follow suit.
It’s market manipulation all around by those that have enough capital to force everyone else to play by their rules.
Everything is at market rates, what is changing is supply and demand. Fewer houses available to rent = higher rents. That is the market. If there are more houses available to rent, rent will be lower than it otherwise would be.
The market is not “places to rent”, it’s “places to live.” If the cost of buying a home falls, the cost of renting a home will fall as well to compete. If what you are saying is true, the cost of renting should have gone down as more private equity gets into the residential market. The opposite has happened.
You understand that when someone buys a home to live in, demand shrinks along with the supply, right?
If you look at the market as “places to live” then banning corporate home purchasing does nothing to supply or demand and thus does not change the price at all. There are still the same number of people who need housing.
Everything we’re talking about is relative to what prices would be otherwise. Rent has increased because there was massive inflation, that doesn’t prove or disprove the impact of corporate homeownership.
Taking (corporate) buyers out of the market is what reducing demand means. Not to mention the corporate buyers are the ones buying up real estate so they can profit off the difference between the rent they charge and the loans they pay off. They’re very much unnecessary middlemen. I’m not saying smaller landlords don’t do that too, but corporate involvement is one of the reasons investor buying power so heavily outweighs resident buying power.
Real estate values have been massively outpacing inflation for decades. Inflation is normal, and has always been a force in economics. Such a huge portion of the middle and working class being unable to own a house is not normal, and since we haven’t had a population explosion or a collapse of the construction industry, a bubble is the best explanation.
The corporate buyers are just buying the houses to rent out. They are switching the home from owned to rented. The corporation isn’t a living person who lives in the house they bought. They only impact demand in the amount they switch, which only matters if you’re splitting up owned vs rented, because that’s what they change. If you’re combining all housing demand to be all people who need housing, the corporations have zero demand for housing, they don’t impact overall demand at all.
There’s always a profit motive at any level, prices are going to be a result of market forces, we don’t give them extra because they’re a corporation. If a corporation is acting monopolistically, that should obviously be banned, and it is.
There’s a larger structural question on whether ALL landlording is “unnecessary middlemen” but that as a solution would be such a huge change and involve seizing property and such that I think that’s outside the realm of the possible. If we’re allowing some landlords, profit is just going to be part of rental payments as it already is.
You’re fucking full of it. Nobody but the rich can afford to fucking buy RIGHT NOW. That would make houses more affordable so NORMAL WORKING PEOPLE people CAN buy instead of rent. But because it’s not a perfect solution for everyone we shouldn’t do it? You sound like a corporate toady, bro.
My solution of building more houses to increase supply helps everyone who needs a place to live and hurts the people who own one or more houses right now.
Your solution helps the people rich enough to have a down payment on hand while hurting those too poor to be able to afford a house.
If we are talking about helping “NORMAL WORKING PEOPLE” my solution does that and yours does not.
There is no reality where we can build fast enough to actually lower demand enough that prices lower. At least not in southern California, where I live.
Yes, we need to build. But realistically, new construction is snapped up at exorbitant “luxury” prices. People always claim it “frees up other supply” of older homes, but that’s complete bullshit.
Yes, if suddenly 30 high rise condos buildings just appeared at the same time, prices may actually be favorably impacted. But reality says that builders are going to maximize their returns, and avoid flooding the market with new homes all at once.
There is no reality where banning corporations from buying houses lowers prices either. Prices are going up in the medium term no matter what. All the more reason we have to actually solve the actual problem.
You do understand that this isn’t an either/or situation, right?
Sure, but I am saying that the banning policy hurts poorer people to help richer people so I wouldn’t do that.
I’m saying to build more because it accomplishes the goal people say they are trying to achieve but aren’t.
Increase supply of homes by taking residentially zoned property out of the hands of corporations who are using it to extract wealth and use it as collateral to amass more wealth. This is an incredibly basic concept that you clearly understand and went so far out of the way to argue against that I’m actually impressed.
You are only thinking of people rich enough to be able to buy a house. I’m thinking of all people who need housing. If you want to reduce the cost to live overall, and not just shift it from rich homeowners to poorer renters, you need to increase supply, period.
Who said anything about renters?
Me, I’m saying if you ban the practice of buying houses to turn into rentals, you are reducing the number of rentals thus increasing the cost to rent.
You are right that nobody is talking about renters, but that is the problem. If you only focus on bringing house prices down, you settle on a solution that brings house prices down while increasing rent prices. You think you’re helping poor people buy houses but you’re actually helping upper middle class people buy while screwing the poor people who still have to rent.