Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People are being priced out of major cities. It’s not like 50 years ago when it was affordable for everyone, now they are becoming gilded areas for those with the proper white collar job.
Would it not be preferable to let demand and supply operate by who wants to live in the area, rather than inflate prices by investors who are looking to make money off of flipping homes, owning high end real estate they’ll never live in, and making money off of zero labor?
Edit: and the point was rent vs. buying, it was pointing out that if two people can live in NYC, one owning an apartment in manhattan, the other renting one in the Bronx, they are not having the same benefits/opportunities of living in supposedly the same city.
What did you just perfectly illustrate?!?!?!?
DING DING DING!
The law of supply and demand.
Hate to break it to you, but 50 years ago high income and low income people weren't living in the same areas of NYC. Populations grow, land doesn't. What do you think naturally happens then?
Derka durr.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
1. Investors shouldn't make money off of rising house prices
2. You just admit here that supply/demand rules that rise housing prices precede corporate investment, which means the latter is not necessary for the former to exist
3. Corporate investment drives demand, unless new development is built, demand won't grow to live in a certain area, that means the investors have control over the original demand.
If you take away profit from flipping and investing in homes, the demand will come solely from people who want to live there, not from people looking to make a buck.
Most if this is pointless drivel.
But just for the record, nobody is going to build you a house for free. If there is no profit in it, why bother. Do it yourself, but I'm pretty confident you couldn't. Worthless freeloader...
Capital gains taxes raised to 90% will move us along the way.
As investment from the private (and public) sector becomes realized due to the 90% tax communities will build cooperatives to create wealth for everyone rather than everyone fighting each-other to make a buck.
Go back in history to study the earliest Pilgrims. They had community gardens to grow food, and the harvest was shared equally no matter how much you worked in the fields. They almost starved to death because there were so many freeloaders not tilling the fields. There was no motivation to show up because you'd get your fair share no matter what.
So, they gave each family a portion of the overall land to farm it for themselves, and they got to keep all the food they grew, and began trading amongst each other. This system produced much more food, and this is how they survived.
The free market economy is why we are all here today. Also, a shout out to America's indiginous people who taught our forefathers how to grow crops in bad soil using decaying fish parts as fertizer.
People are being priced out of major cities. It’s not like 50 years ago when it was affordable for everyone, now they are becoming gilded areas for those with the proper white collar job.
There are tens of millions of people who are living in major cities, therefore as of 2019 they have not been priced out and in fact world migration trends tend to be folks moving into major cities. From that we can conclude your claim that "normal people cannot afford to live in major cities" to be false. What it was 50 years ago isn't relevant to current reality when validating whether you made a false statement or not, that's just more Winterfall-Shuffle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Would it not be preferable to let demand and supply operate by who wants to live in the area, rather than inflate prices by investors who are looking to make money off of flipping homes, owning high end real estate they’ll never live in, and making money off of zero labor?
I'm not interested in what is preferable at this point of the discussion, that's just more Winterfall-Shuffle away from the point of contention here... you believe "normal people cannot afford to live in major cities" and I believe the glaring hole in this argument is that they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Edit: and the point was rent vs. buying, it was pointing out that if two people can live in NYC, one owning an apartment in manhattan, the other renting one in the Bronx, they are not having the same benefits/opportunities of living in supposedly the same city.
Does the fact that two people might have different benefits/opportunities in the same city prove that normal people cannot afford to live in major cities? Nope.
You made a false statement, cannot support, and are continuing to attempt to turn the discussion away from it rather than admit you were wrong.
You can't honestly believe this. When investors choose to invest in high end real-estate, demand goes up, it is not just a provider of supply, as profit is the main motivator.
And when demand is determined for housing by motivations besides living there, like making money, storing money in the housing market, flipping homes, distort the demand that does exist.
Investors investing in high end real estate absolutely does not drive demand. It's like you are saying that if I buy the house next to mine, there will be people flocking to my neighborhood. If I choose to buy 50 houses in a new development, there may be apparent demand, but not any real demand. If there's no real demand, I will go broke, since I need to have renters in my properties to make money from them.
Go back in history to study the earliest Pilgrims. They had community gardens to grow food, and the harvest was shared equally no matter how much you worked in the fields. They almost starved to death because there were so many freeloaders not tilling the fields. There was no motivation to show up because you'd get your fair share no matter what.
So, they gave each family a portion of the overall land to farm it for themselves, and they got to keep all the food they grew, and began trading amongst each other. This system produced much more food, and this is how they survived.
The free market economy is why we are all here today. Also, a shout out to America's indiginous people who taught our forefathers how to grow crops in bad soil using decaying fish parts as fertizer.
What you're describing is not free market capitalism and is not something I'm against.
There are tens of millions of people who are living in major cities, therefore as of 2019 they have not been priced out and in fact world migration trends tend to be folks moving into major cities. From that we can conclude your claim that "normal people cannot afford to live in major cities" to be false. What it was 50 years ago isn't relevant to current reality when validating whether you made a false statement or not, that's just more Winterfall-Shuffle.
I'm not interested in what is preferable at this point of the discussion, that's just more Winterfall-Shuffle away from the point of contention here... you believe "normal people cannot afford to live in major cities" and I believe the glaring hole in this argument is that they do.
Does the fact that two people might have different benefits/opportunities in the same city prove that normal people cannot afford to live in major cities? Nope.
You made a false statement, cannot support, and are continuing to attempt to turn the discussion away from it rather than admit you were wrong.
You're so full of it. That means they don't have access to the same opportunities, nor do they have the capital of time.
Big cities are no longer affordable of the masses.
Investors investing in high end real estate absolutely does not drive demand. It's like you are saying that if I buy the house next to mine, there will be people flocking to my neighborhood. If I choose to buy 50 houses in a new development, there may be apparent demand, but not any real demand. If there's no real demand, I will go broke, since I need to have renters in my properties to make money from them.
No, investors buying real-estate as investment artificial drive up prices.
What creates demand is two fold: development, both public and private.
Secondly it is the value of realestate. If the real estate market in a city is doing good, investors will pour in more money buying up realestate to conserve and grow wealth.
The market is not interested in lowering prices, as investment into real estate makes money for the investors.
Another nonsensical statement from someone who cannot grasp Economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
People are being priced out of major cities.
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's Supply & Demand.
People are pricing themselves out of major cities through their desire to live there.
You can't seem to grasp the reality that people are the Market.
There are 39,287 major housing markets in the US, and each of those has 6 to as many as 40 sub-markets, you know, neighborhoods.
Some neighborhoods are more desirable than others for any number of reasons, so housing costs can vary greatly within one of those 39,287 major markets.
For example, I lived in a particular neighborhood that was built pre-WW I, and because it was, not only do the houses not have garages, they don't even have driveways.
On extremely rare days, I could park in front of my home, and occasionally I could park on street and walk 200' or so to my home, but more often than not, I ended up parking 1-4 blocks away on another street. Such areas are not desired by older people or people of any age group with children, because no young mother wants to tote her children and groceries 3-4 blocks from the car to her home, and make several trips, especially in inclement weather.
Only a small segment of the population, namely undergrad and graduate students and single professionals have any desire to live there, and consequently, houses sell for $30,000 to $50,000 or rent for $450/month.
In areas where housing is desirable, it costs more.
Most housing areas, especially in dense urban areas, have a finite supply of housing.
It is either not possible, or not feasible, to increase the supply of housing, because every inch of land is occupied by a dwelling place or a business.
Eliminating businesses is self-defeating, because it makes areas less desirable. People want quick access to gasoline stations, convenience stores, restaurants, other grocery and retail, and services.
Even where you could tear down two single-family homes, subdivide the two lots into three lots and build three single-family homes, it would not significantly increase the supply of housing to lower the cost of housing.
The only effective way to increase the supply of housing is multi-story multi-family units, but those would have to be 2-3 bedrooms at a minimum, otherwise your market segment is only going to be older people with no children, or single people or young couples with no children, and families with children are still left in a market with few options, so you haven't really impacted the supply of housing at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
