Considering how crazy expensive accommodations have become the last couple of years, concentrated in the hands of greedy corporations, landlords and how little politicians seem to care about this problem, do you think we will ever experience a real estate market crash that would bring those exorbitant prices back to Earth?
No, unless we separate housing from investment, it will never be affordable. I don’t foresee the political will to make it happen.
Investment is exactly what we need. We need more people to see building housing as a good investment, in order to get more housing.
The only other option is forcing people at gunpoint to build housing, and that only works for a couple of months then backfires.
But keeping supply low is more profitable. There isnt going to be an expansion of housing without a change in the rules of the game.
I honestly think were heading for a total societal collapse. If the people with power and resources were the sort that were inclined to use it for good, they would have done it already. Given that we haven’t seen this, it’s reasonable that this accumulation at the top will continue unabated and that more and more people will fall into poverty and despair.
This is a recipe for revolution, and revolution is largely incompatible with stability, especially in the near term.
I wish this wasn’t the case. I suspect this century’'s deaths will dwarf last century’s.
No way, I think we are going to find out that circus is more important than bread, very soon. When people start needing to eat expired food and bugs, they won’t revolt as long as they have TikTok etc.
god i only hope.
Not without some real force or change, middle class has invested to much of their retirement into the housing market to allow the prices to tank. Those who have are not going to risk it for the have nots.
Imagine storing all of your nation’s wealth in real estate that is actively decaying by the minute instead of into companies that make products and provide jobs. What a stupid fucking idea.
Doesn’t matter. Houses are sold for prices as if they’re still mostly new. If you are good you can beat down the price by a cost of a new roof or a new heating system. Never both. No seller will ever acknowledge that renovation doesn’t make sense and the house should be teared down, actively lowering the land value. And they don’t have to. Someone else is around the corner to buy at any price, turning it into an overpriced rental unit.
That’s because in most cases, you’re paying for the cost of the land, not the house itself. Just look at how much unimproved land costs. The house itself is a depreciating asset, the land appreciates so much that it overwhelms the cost of the house. Even condos are subject to this, simply because they take up space (which is worth money) and their price is tied to traditional houses because they are (imperfect) substitutes.
No. Appraisals and tax assessments have a land value and a “structural improvement” values. Both of these are added together for the purchase price.
If there’s a building on the land that’s not derelict and has utilities- it’s almost always going to be worth more than the land value by itself.
There are def certain zip codes and/or a very large plot of land with a single house on it where the inverse is the case (land being worth more than improvement) but that is not the norm.
My entire city burned down a year and a half ago. The burned lots were selling for over half the price as surviving houses, right after the fire. Like they were only 20-30% off. Most of the value is in the land.
No. As the effects of climate change become worse, people will migrate to cooler places, which will only push up prices in those places. Poor people will be left to live in uninhabitable and uninsurable areas, while the rich will get to live in comfort.
Climate change is essentially a class struggle, like everything else in life. As long as the 1% don’t have to suffer, nothing will be done. To get the rich to do something about climate change, it will have to affect them directly.
I also think in addition to what you mentioned people don’t want to address that the population is a problem as well. The earth more than doubled the people living on it in 70 years from all of human history, that’s not just sustainable. You can hypothetically fit 20 people in a one bedroom but just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
I’m in a hot climate and it’s far more expensive here than it is in cooler parts of the country, and it continues to be that way. Your hypothesis would be for the distant future, but that’s not what’s driving costs right now and in the immediate future.
Sure, but the premise of the question is if “we will ever have affordable housing again in our lifetime?” There is no reason to believe there will be affordable housing right now or in the immediate future, and this comment hypothesises why climate change will cause affordable housing to continue to be problematic in the distant future as well.
limate change is essentially a class struggle, like everything else in life. As long as the 1% don’t have to suffer, nothing will be done. To get the rich to do something about climate change, it will have to affect them directly.
Exactly this. Elysium comes to mind, altough it won’t be a space station in orbit but probably a densely populated blue zone in Western Antarctica defended by turret boats or some shit.
The solution is simple, but will never happen. Make it illegal to own a home you don’t live in.
Or at the very least make taxes paid proportionally more for each home you own past 1
What about apartments? Dorms? Would that make being homeless illegal?
Canada banned foreign ownership, and a bunch of local shell companies popped up. So it is not as simple as it sounds.
Canada didn’t ban shit. The Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act is just a token gesture so that politicians can say they did something.
Since permanent residents and private corporations can still buy real-estate property, in practical terms literally nothing has changed.
If you don’t live in the building and it’s for permanent accomodation, you don’t own any part of it. Very simple. Feel free to rent out part of the building though if you do.
Whatever mental gymnastics you did to get from there to homelessness being illegal don’t apply.
|Make it illegal to own a home you don’t live in -> Feel free to rent out part of the building though if you do.
Wouldn’t renting out a building you don’t live in be illegal? Or is AirBnB a loophole?
Wouldn’t renting out a building you don’t live in be illegal
Yes. That’s the point. You can own it if it’s your residence even if someone else lives there too.
Also you don’t seem to comprehend the concept of bed and breakfast
So the only apartments in this brave new world would have the landlords literally living in them with you. That doesn’t sound like an upgrade to me.
Your grasp of the distinction between apartment and building is as abysmal as every other concept you mention.
Also you seem to be equally ignorant of the idea of owning an apartment and of social housing.
Ah, you are just a common troll. Got it. I was a bit tired, so I fed you after midnight. Won’t make that mistake again. Good night.
This is so stupid. The fact that people upvote this makes me want to go back to reddit
I think the people here are young and well meaning but don’t have much real world experience yet.
People here are extreme i went to reddit but quality of conversation is shit. I enjoy tildes a lot i have invite if you want quality of conversation there is amazing.
That’s not extreme. The extreme answer involves more guillotines.
I think were closer to seeing people be forced to rent every comoddity they need to live than we are to seeing full home ownership.
No. Expensive housing is a genie in a bottle.
Once sufficient people have purchased a house at the high price, it would be in their interest for prices to remain high. Corporate entities that buy up houses will actively lobby to make sure housing prices stay high, and the average Joe who paid that much for a house will be happy it stays that way.
I’m not so sure. Large lobbies have greater economic power than us average people, but they aren’t strong enough to defy macroeconomic trends. There are many factors that could turn and cause prices to collapse, we just don’t know when or if they will occur.
Removed by mod
This is kind of just something that krept into my mind but I think with a slowing birthrate that we may just end up with too many homes at some point in the next 25 years.
If you’re talking about the US, the slowing birthrate is compensated for by immigration. This is what drives immigration policy and why the US hasn’t fallen into the same demographic slump as Japan has, and China soon will.
Add to this that much of the tight housing market is driven by people around the world investing in US real estate. Some estimates are as high as 30% of homes sitting empty, held by foreign investors, just appreciating.
Between these two things, we are extremely far from being able to visualize too much housing. I hope we get there, though. Because it would fix the high pricing and allow us to demolish some of the oldest, shittiest housing which is only still around because the market is so nuts.
It’ll probably even out as we may not have enough people to build them?
I bought an apartment about 15 years ago. I finally finished paying it about 3 years ago, and recently got an offer to move to Ontario. With the current house prices and what I was offered there (about 80k), I could barely make rent for my family. I really wanted to move but had to say no because of stupid absurd rent prices. What’s weird is that if I wanted to rent the place I bought I would not be able to afford it either. This is bullshit.
There are 2 big obstacles we need to overcome. The first is corporate ownership of residential property. This needs to go away.
The second big issue, we need to build higher density housing, and get rid of the enormous parking spaces that take up our downtowns. Not everyone needs a house. And you can absolutely build medium density housing that doesn’t feel cramped. Sure, living in an apartment is not perfect, but you are closer to the places you want to go, and public transportation is more feasible. It’s a win-win for everyone.
The problem with high density housing is that the quality is shit. The quality is shit with lower density housing too, but things like thin walls in apartments goes a long way to people wanting to join in the sprawl. Developers fight tooth and nail against any regulations that are focused on QOL or environmental improvements (like “passive house” standards) and promise that they will make it cost far more than necessary if they are so burdened.
Sounds like the solution is to nationalize a good chunk of the home construction industry and run it at cost
Ultimately, change will only happen when the institutions start listening to the people. But we know that won’t happen as long as corporations can buy out and bribe the institutions meant to regulate them.
Yeah but the market is going to have to absolutely tank first. There’s a lot of money in that bubble, and it’s going to be fucking painful when it does. But it’ll get there.
When it tanks people would be laid off and have no money for houses. Basically 2007 all over again. The rich would swoop up all the cheap real estate.
The problem is not affordable housing, there’s plenty of that in the US, the problem is getting people to states where housing is affordable without significant drops in quality of life due to lack of access to services and such.
Like, you could buy land in Detroit for the price of a decent car, put a trailer on it and you’re already on the property ladder, but you’re in Detroit.
After the climate mass deaths, migrations and/or wars, there should be plenty of land.
Although it might not be habitable.
Plenty of unoccupied land, but not unowned.
Perhaps, but what is ownership without a state to enforce it? Companies/landlords would need to occupy and defend it themselves.
I can’t speak to other markets but in California, the housing bubble is in part supported by investment from around the world. Chinese and Russian nouveau rich are buying homes in CA because it’s a safe place to keep their money relative to their other options. They might even just leave them empty and watch them appreciate. It’s disgusting, when people are struggling like hell just to live.
Perhaps the state could regulate this and ban international purchases or empty homes but I highly doubt it since the horse has left the barn decades ago and this would deeply impact many rich people, and those people have influence. It would also tank the home values of many average Americans, which would be deeply unpopular as many of those folks are banking on taking that value with them to Mexico or Ecuador to retire on. So this regulation would be bad for the rich and unpopular at large. It would help the young and the poor, the two chronically underrepresented groups.
So unless we can change the entire world order, I don’t see this wholly going away. Can we make it better? I think so. We need more supply, and it needs to be high density and low cost. Those are not insurmountable. But right now, private developers and the government don’t have what it takes to do anything.
I know someone who works for a low income housing non profit and they manage 8 big apartment buildings that their non profit built or bought and they operate them as homes for low income people. They are funded by philanthropists large and small as well as some public money.
If we could find a way to direct more money to such things, we could make a real impact. Perhaps a wealth tax that goes directly to such housing.
But even then, it’s like MediCal - it will only help those in abject poverty. It wont help my cousin who is making $125k and still can’t afford to buy a home. Middle class will never get help, basically, and this is why you see them moving elsewhere.
deleted by creator
Yes, that too.
