It is impossible to defend democratic rights or any of the social interests of working people without seizing the unearned wealth of the billionaire parasites.
By Purchasing up and holding the supply empty, artificially creating the housing crisis by lobbying against affordable housing construction and exploiting the rent economy of our cities. The rich are outcompeting us for resources.
You’re not really even in the same category as the idle rich. Like sure, you can sell your house and get a profit but you have to live somewhere. If you bought again a similar house in the same area you’d break even.
I’ve got a quarter million dollars in appreciated wealth from my home in five years, but that’s only useful to me if I want to take out a HELOC (with shitty ass rates) or move to someplace that sucks a lot worse.
Every other option would require me to become a landlord, in which case I would be part of the problem.
I’m looking to buy a better place and sure my place went up in value, but unless I want to also change locales I’m gonna have to fork over another wad of bills to get one.
It’s definitely not as bad as being a new market entrant with no capital and no existing investment, but it certainly isn’t the lighting up cigars with hundreds type of wealth you’re pretending it is.
Bollocks, billionaire propaganda. Less that 3,000 people collectively control more than 90% of the World’s wealth. It doesn’t pale in comparison to anything. You’re just a bootlicker, or contrarian, makes no difference. You’re still wrong.
What am I wrong about? You think the equity held by private honeowners is worth more than an infinite line of credit from JP Morgan and Chase Bank? You’re a moron.
Can you explain how? I fail to see how families owning a single home to live in is more extractive than megacorps and banks leveraging leviathan assets to create an artificial shortage and rent market
Because when you look at the total ownership, individual home owners are making the vast majority of the profit from keeping prices high. Around 65% of homes are owned by the family that lives in them, and the second largest chunk of the market is dedicated rental apartments which need to be owned by corps or they would never get built in the first place and are a needed part of the economy, then a smaller chunk is the landlord who own their home plus one rental.
Corporate ownership of non-dedicated rental buildings (houses, townhouses, etc) is still a very small percentage of the overall market.
Should it be happening at all? Probably not, but at the end of the day most of the profits of housing and land appreciation are being reaped by single home owners.
There was a news article a few days ago about a new development land purchase that just went through in Vancouver, BC. 25ish lots were purchased from individual home owners, for a total of $100 million or about 4 million dollars per lot. That cost gets passed onto the people buying the new condos going in, and the profit is going to individual home owners who probably bought those lots for hundreds of thousands over the last twenty or thirty years.
So it sounds like a rock and a hard place. Homeowners don’t want to lose money (and for many doing so would destroy their financial well-being), but they’re also incentivized by banks and realtors to ask higher and higher prices. This also affects voting patterns (i.e. “I bought at an astronomical cost and if it loses value I’m fucked”). But it all sounds like the homeowner is caught between market forces that propel prices higher. The relatively recent introduction of blackrock to corporate homeownership has an outsized impact, like your example, where they spend a ridiculous amount for a property they intend to never sell which will also inflate the property value in a region. I’d be curious to see how that difference could be quantified and understood. Honestly it all feels like 2008 again
This is just anecdotal experience, but when I bought my house I was the only bidder who needed a place to live. The seller and the people I bid against were all looking for rental properties. I honestly only got the place through a fluke
You’re right that this is a rock and a hard place. Which is why I don’t expect it to change anytime soon. What needs to happen is that home ownership rates need to drop, meaning more voters will be renters, then they will have the political clout to push through policies that make things more affordable for them by destroying home values for the now minority of owners.
I give it about 30 years or so before we see that.
I disagree here. Rent is a siphon for your money to go to the wealthy landowners, just like these rising housing prices siphon more of your money to banks.
Unless you’re saying that renters have more political leverage? Which I’m also not sure I agree with. It’s easier to evict a renter than an owner. I think we need more affordable housing, which depends on building accessible homes, controlling outrageous rent, and addressing zoning laws, but all of this depends on a strong economy for those goods and a surplus of jobs that pay enough. Systemic reform of zoning laws and lobbying is where change is
I do mean renters will have more leverage once home ownership rates drop.
We will never build enough homes to drop housing prices to affordable levels. Prices can’t just stop growing, they have to actually drop, and developers will run away from projects the moment prices start declining. We’ve already seen a slowdown in construction in the last year as home prices stagnated.
Yes, let’s be mad at each other instead of the people creating the extractive markets
By Purchasing up and holding the supply empty, artificially creating the housing crisis by lobbying against affordable housing construction and exploiting the rent economy of our cities. The rich are outcompeting us for resources.
What do regular home owners have to do with it? Most regular home owners only own one home.
I’ve made a million dollars in appreciation on my home in the last 15 years.
Are you telling me just because I own one home, that I’m not part of the problem?
You’re not really even in the same category as the idle rich. Like sure, you can sell your house and get a profit but you have to live somewhere. If you bought again a similar house in the same area you’d break even.
I’ve got a quarter million dollars in appreciated wealth from my home in five years, but that’s only useful to me if I want to take out a HELOC (with shitty ass rates) or move to someplace that sucks a lot worse.
Every other option would require me to become a landlord, in which case I would be part of the problem.
I’m looking to buy a better place and sure my place went up in value, but unless I want to also change locales I’m gonna have to fork over another wad of bills to get one.
It’s definitely not as bad as being a new market entrant with no capital and no existing investment, but it certainly isn’t the lighting up cigars with hundreds type of wealth you’re pretending it is.
Correct. I’m telling you that individuals owning a single home aren’t part of the problem.
Individuals voting to keep the value of their home from dropping down to reasonable levels ARE the problem. That’s almost all home owners.
Alright, I’m done indulging your stupidity.
No one mentioned regular home owners. Why are you making devisive comments not related to any point that were made?
Yes they did.
You’ll notice it wasn’t me though, so why am I being asked what somebody I’m actively disagreeing with means by “regular homeowners”?
Bollocks, billionaire propaganda. Less that 3,000 people collectively control more than 90% of the World’s wealth. It doesn’t pale in comparison to anything. You’re just a bootlicker, or contrarian, makes no difference. You’re still wrong.
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Practice more.
What am I wrong about? You think the equity held by private honeowners is worth more than an infinite line of credit from JP Morgan and Chase Bank? You’re a moron.
There’s that pesky reading comprehension again.
No one but the TLC was supporting corporate ownership of residential property.
WE ARE THE PEOPLE CREATING THE EXTRACTIVE MARKETS
Can you explain how? I fail to see how families owning a single home to live in is more extractive than megacorps and banks leveraging leviathan assets to create an artificial shortage and rent market
Because when you look at the total ownership, individual home owners are making the vast majority of the profit from keeping prices high. Around 65% of homes are owned by the family that lives in them, and the second largest chunk of the market is dedicated rental apartments which need to be owned by corps or they would never get built in the first place and are a needed part of the economy, then a smaller chunk is the landlord who own their home plus one rental.
Corporate ownership of non-dedicated rental buildings (houses, townhouses, etc) is still a very small percentage of the overall market.
Should it be happening at all? Probably not, but at the end of the day most of the profits of housing and land appreciation are being reaped by single home owners.
There was a news article a few days ago about a new development land purchase that just went through in Vancouver, BC. 25ish lots were purchased from individual home owners, for a total of $100 million or about 4 million dollars per lot. That cost gets passed onto the people buying the new condos going in, and the profit is going to individual home owners who probably bought those lots for hundreds of thousands over the last twenty or thirty years.
So it sounds like a rock and a hard place. Homeowners don’t want to lose money (and for many doing so would destroy their financial well-being), but they’re also incentivized by banks and realtors to ask higher and higher prices. This also affects voting patterns (i.e. “I bought at an astronomical cost and if it loses value I’m fucked”). But it all sounds like the homeowner is caught between market forces that propel prices higher. The relatively recent introduction of blackrock to corporate homeownership has an outsized impact, like your example, where they spend a ridiculous amount for a property they intend to never sell which will also inflate the property value in a region. I’d be curious to see how that difference could be quantified and understood. Honestly it all feels like 2008 again
This is just anecdotal experience, but when I bought my house I was the only bidder who needed a place to live. The seller and the people I bid against were all looking for rental properties. I honestly only got the place through a fluke
You’re right that this is a rock and a hard place. Which is why I don’t expect it to change anytime soon. What needs to happen is that home ownership rates need to drop, meaning more voters will be renters, then they will have the political clout to push through policies that make things more affordable for them by destroying home values for the now minority of owners.
I give it about 30 years or so before we see that.
I disagree here. Rent is a siphon for your money to go to the wealthy landowners, just like these rising housing prices siphon more of your money to banks.
Unless you’re saying that renters have more political leverage? Which I’m also not sure I agree with. It’s easier to evict a renter than an owner. I think we need more affordable housing, which depends on building accessible homes, controlling outrageous rent, and addressing zoning laws, but all of this depends on a strong economy for those goods and a surplus of jobs that pay enough. Systemic reform of zoning laws and lobbying is where change is
I do mean renters will have more leverage once home ownership rates drop.
We will never build enough homes to drop housing prices to affordable levels. Prices can’t just stop growing, they have to actually drop, and developers will run away from projects the moment prices start declining. We’ve already seen a slowdown in construction in the last year as home prices stagnated.