• Facebones@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    7 months ago

    “Sure I can’t afford housing but not allowing investment bankers to own 75% of the housing stock infringes on my personal freedom!”

  • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    60
    ·
    7 months ago

    Housing in not expensive because of one group buying all of the housing, its expensive because housing is hard to do due to government regulations, expensive due to same regulations, and the currency has been destroyed infavor of the rich for decades. The only reason a large corporation would own SFH is because of how the fed controls the money supply and how housing is incentivized.

    • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      7 months ago

      housing is expensive because some countries see t as an investment. even in some capitalistic countries can have affordable housing (e. g japan in many areas) because how they see housing is completely different than how other capitalistic nations see housing. its why despite having a dogshit working schedule, you could still afford to live in japan even with a shitty job.

      yes, regulations and stuff play a roll in why its expensive, but it doesnt adress the root cause in why it happens, and that answer is because people treat it as $$$ and not a natural right.

      • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        7 months ago

        Housing is considered an investment based off of how the currency is controlled by the government. Japan is an outlier, on big factor is how their population is decreasing. Regulations add over $100k per SFH on average in america, so its a big deal.

        • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          population decreasing has nothing to do with it. South Korea, who has a worse population problem, has the polar opposite. its an absolute hell hole to buy a house because of pricing.

          if what you said was true, living in south korea would be easy (hint: it actually isnt)

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            7 months ago

            Japans populatin is the same as it was in 1994 and South Koreas population has increased slowly, but still increased. So population is imporatant, but I agree its not the only consideration.

    • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I walk through the city at least a few hours a week. Every single building with residential (except sfh) has vacancies. Every single fucking one. Or at least signs announcing them.

      And there are people dying on the street.

      Supply outstrips demand. Maybe by a lot. And people are still dying for need. People are still working two jobs then sleeping in their cars. People are still working high paying jobs and losing half of it to rent.

      There are questions a moral person can have about ‘what to do with landlords’. Questions like ‘should we torture them first’ (there are legitimate arguments against, mostly from an efficiency perspective) and ‘is physical or psychological torture more useful here?’, but at the end of the day, it all ends at the same place, and the later we start on our way, the more people will die before we get there.

      • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        7 months ago

        I am not trying to ignore what you are saying, but every building over 10 units will probably have vacancies due to turnover, and even if they dont currently have a unit turning over they will in the near future and will be getting as many applications as they can.

        And based on the other parts of your comments I dont really think you actually want a real discussion, but to be edgy.

        • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          The signs saying ‘for rent’ are mostly old, many sun bleached. The one I live in has had one unit vacant for over a year.

          Yeah turnover happens, but not like that.

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            That makes sense, they probably never take it down because a good renter is very important. If they havent filled a unit in a year, then that is just strange. Maybe they have the rent too high, not filling a unit in that long doesnt make sense.

            • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              And that’s just the one across from me. They’ve also mentioned two bedrooms on the sign, and I bet the 2 BDRM unit(s) have been the same ones the whole time too. Not to say there hasn’t been any turnover, but its not up to replacement.

              Ive talked to a few people with similar stories.

              And yeah! The rent is consistently too damn high! With your model, that absolutely doesn’t make sense, does it? What are some other explanations for this behavior?

              • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                7 months ago

                There are multiple things happening here that make it complicated and there are too many unknowns. If the issue is that they cant find people that qualify due to not making enough money, then this is the government currency control issue coming home to roost, which I can explain if it helps. If its an issue where the units need to make a minimum to pay for the mortgage, then its a problem with too little supply of units to buy pushing up the cost of ownership of multifamilies. I dont know what is going on in your area.

                But the post seems to be about owning SFH or something owned. That is a separate issue with similar root problems.

                • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  The word ‘house’ in OP is not necessarily talking about sfh. That’s a nitpick. Youre doing that because you don’t actually gave an explanation.

                  If its property taxes, why not just sell? If its not worth it to rent out? Do you not pay property tax on empty units?

                  ‘Can’t find people that qualify’ my dude. Supply. And. Demand. Supply outstrips demand. If theres demand not being filled and supply not being used and they’re literally right next to each other, sometimes stealing the signs advertising the supply to make going without a little easier (the corrugated plastic signs are usually white. Durable, lightweight, keeps sun and water off) then maybe the entire system is broken?

                  Or working as intended, and these people are supposed to die, and everyone complicit in this system deserves a fucking noose, for the murders they commited, because every city in america is becoming an open air concentration camp maintained by exactly the bullshit youre espousing and the idea that ‘it could never happen to me’?

      • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        7 months ago

        As a person in real estate, I am directly telling you guys what makes housing expensive, if you guys think its big corporations, then you really are not thinking logically or factually on the matter.

        • Crikeste@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          You can lie about working in real estate all you want. You are refusing to recognize the affect the housing market has on prices.

          No fucking shit houses cost a lot of money to build.

          That doesn’t mean shit when a house that cost $50,000 to build now costs $750,000 to own.

  • Steve@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    81
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Rent is not double the mortgage.

    Maybe the base mortgage payment, but you also have to pay for insurance, taxes, maintenance, utilities.

    If you can’t get good terms on a mortgage you will also have a higher rate and PMI.

    Yes poor people must pay more for the same house, and rent can be cheaper.

    Edit- Hexbears: grow up, get a job, buy a calculator, and try to figure out why you are so wrong.

    • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      7 months ago

      “Lemmy doesn’t have the hive mind like that toxic Reddit.”

      Meanwhile, you get downvoted because you’re right 🤦

      For everyone downvoting, go compare Craigslist rent prices to Zillow/Redfin listing prices with 20% in a major city.

      You are of course right, at least for my part of the world (high CoL USA city). Renting a 3 bedroom will run 4k for something modest (5 or 6 for something nice maybe?). Buying a 3 bedroom will run 10k or so with 20% down. Buying is definitely more expensive in the short term (long term is another story).

      Only way for mortgage to be more than rent is for something purchased a while back, or for a new purchase with a large % down payment. Which absolutely happens, but sheesh, parent isn’t wrong…

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        They were down voted for treating hyperbole as a “gotch ya!” It doesn’t have to literally be twice the cost of the mortgage for the fact to stand that renting is more expensive than owning.

        It’s not a “hive mind” thing, it’s a “missing the point” thing.