[OC] State by State Housing Price Growth since 1975Submitted by fred_fotch t3_zvaijm in dataisbeautiful
Ambitious-Event-5911 t1_j1oscbl wrote
This is why I'm renting. I hate real estate speculators. I hate that our country allows housing to be used as an investment. I hate Jamie Diamond the predatory lender that still got all his bonuses.
scarabic t1_j1r8hvq wrote
How is renting a solution though? Rents are skyrocketing everywhere as well. Who do you think is bringing cash to this table and pouring it into speculators’ pockets? Renters.
iidesune t1_j1wt8rb wrote
Homebuyers are pouring money into the real estate market as well. A house is only as valuable as what the next buyer is willing to spend on it. Hence the delicate balance policymakers must manage when it comes to housing affordability. Homeowners want to see returns on their "investments," but can only do so if a prospective homebuyer pays that return. It's a rat race.
At least with renting you can always vote with your feet or seek better employment in a new zip code or state. Paying rent isn't throwing away money at all. You're paying for the freedom and convenience to move around and find a situation that works best for your current situation.
scarabic t1_j1wyw9b wrote
The difference is you can buy houses on credit, leverage. In a hot market, borrowing is cheap and speculation drives speculation. Rent, meanwhile, is always paid in cash. Rent is the transfusion of actual blood into what is otherwise a zombie of speculation and credit. It props up the rat race. And renters are getting squeezed hard as the balloon grows.
Sure renting has advantages. Easier to move. Predictable costs. But now we’re on a different subject. We started on rent being some kind of way out of the housing market shit show, and unfortunately it totally isn’t.
Sure, you’re paying rent for something but your rent is often paying the entire mortgage of someone else who is just sitting back gaining equity. It’s hard to say you’re throwing money away but impossible to say you’re winning or not part of the game.
iidesune t1_j1x1776 wrote
> Rent is the transfusion of actual blood into what is otherwise a zombie of speculation and credit.
I actually have no idea what you mean by this
scarabic t1_j1xgalo wrote
Yeah maybe that metaphor is pretty obtuse.
What I mean is that speculation bubbles don’t always have much basis in real value. Housing in particular is highly leveraged. People buy a house without having all the money for it. Banks lend them the money but they’re not entirely liquid either. The mortgage gets sold and resold, bundled into investment vehicles and derivatives. Families count on their house to be some kind of “investment” and rely on the bubble to fund their retirement. It’s a big network of over-leveraged actors. It stumbles onward largely on its own momentum, but it can be totally hollow, a bubble, a “zombie.”
Renters on the other hand pay cash in hand everywhere they go. Nothing they do is permitted to be a loan or leverage. Whenever renters appear in the diagram, actual cash is flowing in. “Blood infusion.”
Maybe I meant vampire, not zombie.
To offer an example: I bought my first home in 2006, right before the big crash. I got a loan with very little down during the subprime lending spree. Then the crash happened and I wound up upside down on the mortgage. Shortly after I also needed that freedom to “vote with my feet” and move that you speak of. Know what I did? I rented the place out. I paid the mortgage, taxes, and repairs with the rent cash while the market recovered. Even pocketed some monthly profit. And once the market roared back, I sold the place at a big profit.
I was the person over-leveraged, actually at negative value, the zombie, but by feeding on renters, I was eventually made whole.
So when you say you rent because you l’re disgusted by the whole speculation market, I don’t see how that’s a solution. The buyers/sellers are still feeding on you as a renter. You’re maybe the only party in the entire picture who is always there with ready cash in hand, while everyone else is engaged in a gang-bang of credit leverage.
iidesune t1_j1xh0vz wrote
This is a fine argument for the merit of being a renter.
Just feel fortunate that you lucked out and found a buyer for your home. I would challenge you to factor in down payment, closing costs, maintenance, interest, selling costs, taxes, insurance, and other housing related costs (furniture, utilities, etc) before determining that you actually made a big profit by selling your home.
scarabic t1_j1xjq9u wrote
Um. My dude. No, I didn’t just forget about my down payment (which immediately becomes equity anyway - you knew that, right?).
The rest of this we tracked continuously and at tax time. If you’ve never owned, maybe it seems hopelessly complex and expensive to you. I can’t tell if that’s it or you just tried so hard to puff up that list that it became ridiculous. Furniture!
Anyway keep renting since you find it morally superior to be exploited than exploit. I won’t take that away from you, just the illusion that you’re somehow not involved.
imnotsoho t1_j1p26wd wrote
What other things would you like to put price controls on? If I buy a car should I have to sell it for the same price? A stock? Painting?
uhh_khakis t1_j1p2qx5 wrote
whataboutism. cars, and certainly not paintings, are not even comparable to the level of requirement for basic human needs and security as housing. show some fucking compassion for people who don't have it as good as you, jfc
daedalus_was_right t1_j1p4h6l wrote
I don't need a painting to live. I don't need stocks to survive.
I need a home as a basic necessity for survival.
Honest question; do you prefer a full leather upper, or something synthetic, when you do your bootlicking?
beerbaconblowjob t1_j1p8oi9 wrote
Well you need food to live, clothes to live, medicine to live, electricity and gas to live. How many things is the government supposed to provide?
Housing gets a bad wrap, but the truth is every industry I mentioned would stop functioning if it weren’t for investors.
YangYin-li t1_j1pq9lg wrote
I like the idea of “everything required to survive”
beerbaconblowjob t1_j1qskop wrote
Ok, just keep in mind that the government will make a much worse fashion designer, a much worse cook, and there will be a two year wait for a crappy roach invested place to live.
YangYin-li t1_j1qtvh4 wrote
That’s a lot of assumptions about how it would work (I 100% get where you’re coming from/saying tho)
beerbaconblowjob t1_j1qxnho wrote
I’d call it a presumption, here’s a government that told us N95 masks weren’t effective at preventing infection, so they could save them from the healthcare workers. A huge lie.
This government that sent out two measly covid tests 3 months after the first Omicron surge. They had an entire year and scientists to tell them to ramp up production because the virus would mutate.
Literally everything they’ve done has been pathetic, so yeah I’m not optimistic about them controlling every aspect of the economy.
Almost everyone wants the poor to be better off, but communism has never worked, and when you point that out to people their response is, yeah but it’d work in utopia.
Sure, but in the real word that much power leads to tyranny, and no organization (government) can do everything right. Corporations need to stay in their area of expertise.
Not sure why people want a massive bureaucracy in the middle of every aspect of their lives.
YangYin-li t1_j1r2iq8 wrote
I just want free food housing healthcare for everyone, and I know we have the means to do it
godspareme t1_j1qvtea wrote
Or, hear me out. Give everyone $1000 (which should scale with inflation & COL) and say "this should cover part of your rent, food, clothes, etc."
No one is asking the government to start their own free clothing production company.
As for a waiting list, not really. There are other countries where housing units are required to be non-profit and rented at cost. They also have a ~30% market share of private housing units that are for-profit. The non-profit drives the cost of for-profit housing units to be competitive and barely above cost. There are little to no waiting lists. And no the places aren't shitty.
That last argument is just fear.
OrderOfMagnitude t1_j1rojxc wrote
Scalping houses is only an investment in the sense that you spend now and profit later. It's not actually doing anything productive.
Investing in businesses, although riskier, has the benefit of growing the economy and helping everyone.
In Japan, where quantitative easing was invented, there were strict investment rules to make sure that investors were investing in real investments and not just the real estate speculation that fucked up their economy. Such rules haven't existed here which is why most free covid money got "invested" in houses, causing rampant speculation.
"I'm just investing" haha go invest in a real business or call yourself what you are: a scalper and a parasite.
jsm1095 t1_j1qlid4 wrote
Can I invest in your ego? Seems like it’ll only go up from here.
tails99 t1_j1pcl5f wrote
The price controls are made by existing homeowners through restrictive zoning. There is no reason why housing should go up in price. Everything is supposed to go down in price, EXCEPT income. Anything going up in price in a free market is an economic aberration. An even simpler solution to cut housing costs is to legalize living in cars, but homeowners and landlords don't like that either, now do they? More of your "price controls"...
kaizerdouken t1_j1pzpzn wrote
Have you ever taken a course in economy? Just curious.
tails99 t1_j1r3728 wrote
I have a degree in economics. Nearly all economists agree that price controls are bad. Rent control is one of those bad things. Exclusionary zoning is the same terrible rent control, except for rich people. I still don't know why it is legal. How can more housing be bad?
Ambitious-Event-5911 t1_j1s1krz wrote
Homes should not be a product. There shouldn't be a market for them.
tails99 t1_j1smsrf wrote
There is market for everything because otherwise no one would know how much to make or at what price to sell. Increasing house prices mean that more needs to be built to then lower prices. If more housing is illegal, then enough housing won't be built, existing houses will go up in prices, and those who can't afford them will live in cars or on the street.
kaizerdouken t1_j1t9qxm wrote
Okay. Maybe I don’t understand what you’re saying. Excuse my ignorance. Let’s say I buy a multi family building. I raise its value and intend to sell it after 2 years. Are you saying this property should not raise its price? Rendering me a loss or no gain by the time I want to sell and make a good gain on it?
tails99 t1_j1tce1n wrote
I'm not sure how your comment is relevant. In your example, there has been no creation of any more units of housing. I'm referring to it being ILLEGAL to build MORE housing that is DENSE.
​
"I raise its value" :: How do you raise its value?
kaizerdouken t1_j1te873 wrote
You’re the one with the degree in economics. I can’t answer for you.
tails99 t1_j1xoqr4 wrote
I can't answer your question because it doesn't make any sense. It has nothing to do with me. LOL.
dontich t1_j1pfasz wrote
I mean there is only a certain amount of in demand land in locations people want to live— even if you allow unlimited density the most popular land would still increase in value…. But yes the actual housing built on said land should depreciate.
tails99 t1_j1r3jja wrote
Yes, exactly. People don't live on limited LAND, people live in HOUSING. Land is limited vertically, like a rare physical Picasso painting, but housing is unlimited vertically, just like looking at a digital Picasso is unlimited.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments