Building homes is expensive. It requires land, materials, skilled labor, permits, and time. Buying a home is a major investment
And yet it not very long ago it was feasible for a single income earner on minimum wage to not only be able to afford a home, but do so while supporting a family. So what has ballooned in price to make that out of reach for the vast majority of people? The land, materials, skilled labor, permits, or the house itself due to it being used as an investment?
Like any market, housing is shaped by supply and demand.
There are many viable houses sitting vacant because the landlords would rather wait for someone that can afford the absurdly high rent than risk lowering the market value of rent for their other properties.
If the first person in line to a concert purchases every ticket then resells them for 10x the cost the solution is not “make more tickets available”. The scalper will just buy them as well.
And yet it not very long ago it was feasible for a single income earner on minimum wage to not only be able to afford a home, but do so while supporting a family.
Could they be anything other than a white male? Was that by any chance directly after a major war that significantly reduced the male population? Were the houses often extremely low quality and built without any modern safety codes? Historical context matters, if you weren’t in the privileged group this scenario was just as much of a fantasy then as it is today.
And yet it not very long ago it was feasible for a single income earner on minimum wage to not only be able to afford a home, but do so while supporting a family.
You’re correct, but at the same time, buying a house was still a very expensive back then as well. It was major purchase for most people, just not to the same extant relative to today.
So what has ballooned in price to make that out of reach for the vast majority of people? The land, materials, skilled labor, permits, or the house itself due to it being used as an investment?
All of the above, but also, by far the single biggest reason why house prices have gone up is because we haven’t been building enough houses to meet demand. If you look up the US housing inventory over time, you’ll basically see that it has basically collapsed since the great recession to near all time lows. In the meantime, this country’s population has grown quite a bit since then, we’ve added well over 20 million people since 2010. So there you have it, that’s the root cause. If we built houses as the same rates as we have in decades past, we would be an experiencing a housing boom right now reverse the current seller’s market into a buyer’s market.
There are many viable houses sitting vacant because the landlords would rather wait for someone that can afford the absurdly high rent than risk lowering the market value of rent for their other properties.
It’s actually more nuanced than that. The majority of the houses that are vacant are either seasonal houses in states like Maine, Florida, or West Virginia or they’re undergoing renovations (source). There is still a decent portion that are being held as investments, but the number of actually vacant units are smaller than a lot of people think. As for the ones that being held for investment, it’s not your mom and pop landlords who are doing that, it’s massive corporations like Blackrock or JP Morgan Chase who actually have the means to sit on empty properties, pay the taxes, and play long manipulative game.
If the first person in line to a concert purchases every ticket then resells them for 10x the cost the solution is not “make more tickets available”. The scalper will just buy them as well
If you want to make the argument that corporations should be banned or greatly limited to buying residential housing, then I agree with you. However, that is a different discussion than saying that rent is inherently bad.
You’re correct, but at the same time, buying a house was still a very expensive back then as well. It was major purchase for most people, just not to the same extant relative to today.
Okay, so we agree that there is a problem then. It was feasible in the past and basically impossible now. If housing prices were relatively the same as they were when I was a child I wouldn’t be upset about landlords, but we are in a housing crises now and something has to change.
The majority of the houses that are vacant are either seasonal houses in states like Maine, Florida, or West Virginia
You mean vacation homes. People who own multiple properties so that can sit vacant the majority of the year. Boo-fucking-hoo if people have to sell their vacation home to someone who actually needs a place to live.
they’re undergoing renovations (source)
The only thing your source says is “Some are seasonal homes, some are undergoing renovations, and others are simply being held as investments.” it does not provide a number or a link. 2 houses undergoing renovations counts as “some”.
There is still a decent portion that are being held as investments
That’s exactly the fucking problem. Yes.
it’s not your mom and pop landlords who are doing that, it’s massive corporations like Blackrock or JP Morgan Chase who actually have the means to sit on empty properties, pay the taxes, and play long manipulative game.
So we agree that the majority of rental properties are owned by a landlord that is making life objectively worse for people? Then we should do something about that instead of clutching pearls about the 1% of houses owned by “mom and pop landlord”.
And speaking of, can we stop with the “mom and pop landlord” bullshit? I have family members who are exactly the type of people you are talking about. They own a rental property and take care of it and their renters. If suddenly they couldn’t do that anymore they would be fine. The property is not their livelihood, it’s an investment. They would just invest in something else. These are people that can afford multiple properties in the current market (which we already agreed is much too expensive).
Property can be affordable or be an investment, not both. I’m arguing that it should be affordable (being a basic requirement for survival and all). People using it as an investment can go invest somewhere else.
that is a different discussion than saying that rent is inherently bad.
The source of the disagreement isn’t that there isn’t a problem, but what the source of the problem is and how we should go about addressing it.
You mean vacation homes. People who own multiple properties so that can sit vacant the majority of the year.
Only 4.6% of the housing stock in the US are second homes (source). Even if they were all available, that’s not enough to make a dent in the housing market. Not to mention that most of these homes are in states like Vermont, Maine, and West Virginia where the housing crises is not the worse because houses there are cheaper than elsewhere and the demand is lower than elsewhere.
it does not provide a number or a link.
It does provide a link to a study actually, check again.
2 houses undergoing renovations counts as “some”.
Different source, but the number of vacant houses held by investors is around 880,000 or 63% of vacant houses in the country (source). There’s no data for renovations specifically, but a portion of this figure would fall under that category.
That’s exactly the fucking problem. Yes.
It’s a factor, but there’s still not enough vacant units held by investors to meet demand. We have an actual housing shortage.
So we agree that the majority of rental properties are owned by a landlord that is making life objectively worse for people?
No, we don’t. I agree that some landlords are slum lords and they’re bad, and I also agree that a lot of corporate landlords aren’t great, but landlords are like any other other service providers, there’s good and bad.
Then we should do something about that instead of clutching pearls about the 1% of houses owned by “mom and pop landlord”
This is just false. Small rental properties are defined as buildings that have 1-4 units, they make up 46% of the rental market in the US, and over 70% are own by private individuals, and around 70% are managed by the same owners (source). That’s a pretty significant portion.
I have family members who are exactly the type of people you are talking about. They own a rental property and take care of it and their renters. If suddenly they couldn’t do that anymore they would be fine. The property is not their livelihood, it’s an investment.
Speak for yourself. You can’t make sweeping generalizations or conclusions off of your anecdotes. I know a few people who own duplex and triplexes, and they would literally be homeless if they did not have their tenants helping them out. You’re oversimplifying things to fuel a narrative you subscribe to rather than looking at things through an objective lens.
Property can be affordable or be an investment, not both. I’m arguing that it should be affordable (being a basic requirement for survival and all). People using it as an investment can go invest somewhere else.
Property can be both because there are different types of property. When it comes to housing specifically, if we want average homes to become more affordable and remove the investment aspect of them then we have to build new houses. We have to build so many new houses that not only do we fill up the inventory shortage and meet demand, but go far beyond that to the point where we turn the housing market into a buyer’s market forcing sellers and developers to compete. That’s how we can get a plentiful supply, that’s genuinely affordable for middle class and working class people.
There’s a reason rent seeking behavior is a derogatory term.
This term is defining certain behaviors that are unethical, harmful, and immoral. The actual concept of renting itself is fine. You’re paying a fee to a get a service, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that.
And yet it not very long ago it was feasible for a single income earner on minimum wage to not only be able to afford a home, but do so while supporting a family. So what has ballooned in price to make that out of reach for the vast majority of people? The land, materials, skilled labor, permits, or the house itself due to it being used as an investment?
There are many viable houses sitting vacant because the landlords would rather wait for someone that can afford the absurdly high rent than risk lowering the market value of rent for their other properties.
If the first person in line to a concert purchases every ticket then resells them for 10x the cost the solution is not “make more tickets available”. The scalper will just buy them as well.
Could they be anything other than a white male? Was that by any chance directly after a major war that significantly reduced the male population? Were the houses often extremely low quality and built without any modern safety codes? Historical context matters, if you weren’t in the privileged group this scenario was just as much of a fantasy then as it is today.
You’re correct, but at the same time, buying a house was still a very expensive back then as well. It was major purchase for most people, just not to the same extant relative to today.
All of the above, but also, by far the single biggest reason why house prices have gone up is because we haven’t been building enough houses to meet demand. If you look up the US housing inventory over time, you’ll basically see that it has basically collapsed since the great recession to near all time lows. In the meantime, this country’s population has grown quite a bit since then, we’ve added well over 20 million people since 2010. So there you have it, that’s the root cause. If we built houses as the same rates as we have in decades past, we would be an experiencing a housing boom right now reverse the current seller’s market into a buyer’s market.
It’s actually more nuanced than that. The majority of the houses that are vacant are either seasonal houses in states like Maine, Florida, or West Virginia or they’re undergoing renovations (source). There is still a decent portion that are being held as investments, but the number of actually vacant units are smaller than a lot of people think. As for the ones that being held for investment, it’s not your mom and pop landlords who are doing that, it’s massive corporations like Blackrock or JP Morgan Chase who actually have the means to sit on empty properties, pay the taxes, and play long manipulative game.
If you want to make the argument that corporations should be banned or greatly limited to buying residential housing, then I agree with you. However, that is a different discussion than saying that rent is inherently bad.
Okay, so we agree that there is a problem then. It was feasible in the past and basically impossible now. If housing prices were relatively the same as they were when I was a child I wouldn’t be upset about landlords, but we are in a housing crises now and something has to change.
You mean vacation homes. People who own multiple properties so that can sit vacant the majority of the year. Boo-fucking-hoo if people have to sell their vacation home to someone who actually needs a place to live.
The only thing your source says is “Some are seasonal homes, some are undergoing renovations, and others are simply being held as investments.” it does not provide a number or a link. 2 houses undergoing renovations counts as “some”.
That’s exactly the fucking problem. Yes.
So we agree that the majority of rental properties are owned by a landlord that is making life objectively worse for people? Then we should do something about that instead of clutching pearls about the 1% of houses owned by “mom and pop landlord”.
And speaking of, can we stop with the “mom and pop landlord” bullshit? I have family members who are exactly the type of people you are talking about. They own a rental property and take care of it and their renters. If suddenly they couldn’t do that anymore they would be fine. The property is not their livelihood, it’s an investment. They would just invest in something else. These are people that can afford multiple properties in the current market (which we already agreed is much too expensive).
Property can be affordable or be an investment, not both. I’m arguing that it should be affordable (being a basic requirement for survival and all). People using it as an investment can go invest somewhere else.
There’s a reason rent seeking behavior is a derogatory term.
The source of the disagreement isn’t that there isn’t a problem, but what the source of the problem is and how we should go about addressing it.
Only 4.6% of the housing stock in the US are second homes (source). Even if they were all available, that’s not enough to make a dent in the housing market. Not to mention that most of these homes are in states like Vermont, Maine, and West Virginia where the housing crises is not the worse because houses there are cheaper than elsewhere and the demand is lower than elsewhere.
It does provide a link to a study actually, check again.
Different source, but the number of vacant houses held by investors is around 880,000 or 63% of vacant houses in the country (source). There’s no data for renovations specifically, but a portion of this figure would fall under that category.
It’s a factor, but there’s still not enough vacant units held by investors to meet demand. We have an actual housing shortage.
No, we don’t. I agree that some landlords are slum lords and they’re bad, and I also agree that a lot of corporate landlords aren’t great, but landlords are like any other other service providers, there’s good and bad.
This is just false. Small rental properties are defined as buildings that have 1-4 units, they make up 46% of the rental market in the US, and over 70% are own by private individuals, and around 70% are managed by the same owners (source). That’s a pretty significant portion.
Speak for yourself. You can’t make sweeping generalizations or conclusions off of your anecdotes. I know a few people who own duplex and triplexes, and they would literally be homeless if they did not have their tenants helping them out. You’re oversimplifying things to fuel a narrative you subscribe to rather than looking at things through an objective lens.
Property can be both because there are different types of property. When it comes to housing specifically, if we want average homes to become more affordable and remove the investment aspect of them then we have to build new houses. We have to build so many new houses that not only do we fill up the inventory shortage and meet demand, but go far beyond that to the point where we turn the housing market into a buyer’s market forcing sellers and developers to compete. That’s how we can get a plentiful supply, that’s genuinely affordable for middle class and working class people.
This term is defining certain behaviors that are unethical, harmful, and immoral. The actual concept of renting itself is fine. You’re paying a fee to a get a service, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that.