Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

imnotsoho t1_j1p26wd wrote

Reply to comment by Ambitious-Event-5911 in [OC] State by State Housing Price Growth since 1975 by fred_fotch

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?

−21

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

26

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?

17

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.

−8

YangYin-li t1_j1pq9lg wrote

I like the idea of “everything required to survive”

7

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.

0

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)

3

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.

0

YangYin-li t1_j1r2iq8 wrote

I just want free food housing healthcare for everyone, and I know we have the means to do it

2

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.

1

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.

1

jsm1095 t1_j1qlid4 wrote

Can I invest in your ego? Seems like it’ll only go up from here.

1

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"...

0

kaizerdouken t1_j1pzpzn wrote

Have you ever taken a course in economy? Just curious.

3

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?

1

Ambitious-Event-5911 t1_j1s1krz wrote

Homes should not be a product. There shouldn't be a market for them.

1

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.

0

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?

1

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?

1

kaizerdouken t1_j1te873 wrote

You’re the one with the degree in economics. I can’t answer for you.

1

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.

1

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.

1

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.

1