you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

A lack of housing is very explicitly our problem. Houses that are empty are not unowned.

Until housing is no longer seen as an investment, which can only happen if we are allowed to build sufficient housing, housing will continue to go up in value, and thus more people will invest

Anyone who sees their home as their "nest egg" is part of the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    So you build 500,000 new homes and blackstone or other companies buy 450,000, meaning you only actually generated 50,000 new homes. No, corporate interests are the vast majority of the problem with housing. Your neighbor renting out their house after buying a 2nd isn't the issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Assuming some large capital group buys all those homes, they're going to do it to try to make money off of it.

    More supply means lower prices

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Constraining supply, either by not building, or by buying everything available, means higher prices, so they don't have to sell as many houses to make the same revenue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Until housing is no longer seen as an investment, which can only happen if we are allowed to build sufficient housing

    It can happen through legislation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments