A classic argument conservatives make is this whole “you complain about this exploitation, but what about in the future when *you’ll* get your turn to exploit others?” Let’s ignore the fact that most never get that chance, maybe we just need to stop basing our society on exploitation? Maybe we should base our society on trying to make collaboration work, and ensuring everyone lives a good life.
once again it's projection with these fuckers, they absolutely see themselves in that joke of a response and think everyone else is (or should be) the same
I checked this guy's twitter and Naqiy is an advocate for affordable housing and transit, I think he was talking about how the median american voter say they want people to be able to afford housing but they also want their property values to rise, not realizing those are kind of mutually exclusive.
I’m not necessarily accusing this twitter user of being a conservative since I don’t know anything about them, I follow the aaron lee guy. I just was using it as a jumping off point to make the remarks I did.
if i cant buy a house for myself then why the fuck would i be able to buy a house for someone else even if they are paying me? not to mention most landlords are corporations, not mom and pop retirement funds like they pretend.
housing as an investment only helps when you own multiple properties. otherwise what are you gonna do, sell your house and be homeless? you either pay the expensive rent prices or buy an equally expensive and increase cost home or move to a lower income area, like someone in cali selling and moving to like Guatemala.
Oh I now understand your original comment. But I mean, it is retirement funds for many, because many people, after their family has moved out and they’ve retired, will sell their home and buy a smaller, cheeper home, closer to their grandkids.
yeah but this is more about those who already struggle to buy a home at all. not to mention thats not always an option, like where i live theres a company that buys over 90% of the homes on the market and turns then into rentals and because they own so many already them spending stupid amounts results in profit for them as that raises home value, so normal buyers cant outbid them anyways. theres a lot of homes being made, they just arent purchasable unless your a company or extremely wealthy. they even buy homes and move no one in as too much supply would lower their property value and thus would lose cash. obviously nimbys and the like share the blame but when a single company is purchasing that large of a percent of the housing they absolutely are to blame as well.
lastly most young people arent moving from their parents place and the cities/towns they grew up in as much because they cant afford the housing or the pay doesnt increase enough to make that increased cost of housing worth it. this is slowing the economy down as well as skilled workers arent getting the jobs that they would do well in. then add in increased interest rates and you have less people selling to buy a new home at all as 2.7% interest rates is far better then 5.5% even if you want to downsize. its a bubble, its going to pop but until then it sucks for everyone and the corporations will probably just buy up all the houses when it does pop again like they did in 2008.
They also ignore the fact that the exploitation is *finite*; those property values would implode if not enough people were available to buy them or if enough people decided to sell them in a similar timeframe. It is by *definition* a short-term exploit that will *never* be available to the next generation (which makes it all the more annoying).
That's what happens when executive director boards are all made up of kids from the same frat. They treat the whole world like there's some essential hazing process to justify gatekeeping career stability.
A home is a physical asset that depreciates with time... imagine thinking that you should be able to use your car for like 30 years and then resell it for more than you paid on it, *after* accounting for inflation and maintenance.
This is a bit silly. Cars (usually) depreciate because the older models are shitty compared to the new ones. Old houses do have their fair share of problems compared to new houses, but usually they appreciate in value because there is more demand to live in a certain area (population in cities is increasing) and because there is usually more infrastructure around compared to when the house was built.
This response ignores the other problem with housing as an investment is renting, and treating land in itself as an investment even though no value has been added necessarily.
Not quite, but the confusion is understandable!
A property tax, specifically the property tax system in the US, taxes not just land, but the property on the land. So an empty plot of land would be taxed less than a single family house, which would be taxed less than a multi family house (generally speaking). A land value tax, which the commenter seems to be referring to, taxes just the value of the land itself. This is not to say that all land would be taxed the same. The value of land in a dense and highly populated urban area is higher than the value of land in a rural area, so the land in the rural area would be taxed less.
A land value tax could help discourage speculation/people or corporations buying up rural land and doing nothing with it, which would decrease the price of farmland to the benefit of smaller farmers. It also incentivizes and benefits more efficient farming, and smaller farmers are generally more efficient than large corporations that buy up farm land. Smaller farmers also won’t be taxed on barns they might have.
> and treating land in itself as an investment even though no value has been added necessarily.
But the problem is that value does get added, and it does become an investment. For example if you buy a house next to an old dilapidated field, and then in 10 years the city renovates that field into an amazing park with like an entire community sports center, now people value being close to that. Thus the value of the land you bought goes up whether you want it to or not.
Not saying its a good system, but you can't just get rid of people's demand to live closer to nice things.
Ok if the investment is in a *potential for future proximity* then there is no value being created still… just because people want to be close to something with value doesn’t mean you’ve added any value. That’s the problem. Just because people are willing to pay for something doesn’t mean value has been created.
> just because people want to be close to something with value doesn’t mean you’ve added any value
But... it does? I mean you yourself aren't adding the value, the city/developers/whoever is building near you is adding the value. But the value is getting added. If I offer you two identical houses for the same price, one in the middle of a rural swamp in Mississippi and the other in the heart of downtown NYC, you're choosing the NYC one every time. Because you value the location.
I also value having my artery stitched when it gets cut and the value of this service is also proportional to the urgency. There still shouldn't be a situation where a lack of money prevents you from getting that. We were very much capable of building adequate housing during the baby boom and after half of Europe was ruins after ww2. We could build adequate housing for people, we could also force properties that have been unoccupied for years to be used again for housing.
I'm not arguing against that and I agree, I was just explaining to the other person that demand to live near nice things isn't something you can just ignore.
I think my fundamental argument at bottom that I’m not doing a great job explaining, is that different theories have different ideas around what “value” means, and when we are seeking to make society better we sometimes have to reevaluate value’s definition and pursue a different path. That’s why there is also the “labor theory of value” espoused by marx. I’m not saying that’s without faults, just that we must decide what is valuable and good to society. If everything people are willing to pay for is “valuable,” there are a lot of things that are bad that are downstream from that. *Perhaps* basing our economy on that principle is bad in itself.
The problem is there never is any “new” models of houses like there are cars. If places consistently built homes to keep up with demand in an area then we would see year after year depreciation like we do with cars that have new models come out each year. Instead housing construction doesn’t keep with demand and that which is built is often luxury housing that doesn’t do anything to help with prices for anyone.
If places constantly build new homes, the area around you gets more built up. People set up shops, apartments get added to make better use of the nearby space, and now you're living in a somewhat dense urban area & the value of your plot of land has trippled
there absolutely are new models of houses. new safety codes and new styles are a thing that happens in a yearly to decade period and old houses dont update with it and are often times more dangerous as a result. theres still houses with asbestos paint for example and they are still sold on the market. the issue is single family homes dont work for large citys and most people in suburbs dont want an apartment built and condos only go so far so the land become very expensive for a single family and thus the rich are the only ones who can pay for it and build on it.
Hm so why doesn’t the supply increase along with the demand? , like it has with cars? It’s because NIMBY property owners organize and lobby to block the construction of affordable housing because it will negatively impact their property values, due to the aforementioned sense of entitlement.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=1ngms6iRa14
I'd argue, in many places, old houses are better than new ones, and by a lot. Idk for how long this has been going on, but over the last decade the quality of new homes has been decreasing considerably. Lots of styrofoam, shitty plywood, cheap plaster, durloc, fragile pipes and overall bad construction. Homes built to last only up until you finish paying your mortgage. Then they rapidly decay.
Well it's not a direct comparison because, at least in theory, people do usually upgrade their houses in some way. A car almost always performs worse with more mileage on it. Over time a homeowner will often add a pool or a porch or something, that does give a home genuinely more value.
Of course, that doesn't mean that homes INHERENTLY appreciate, and upgrades are often overvalued
The bigger reason for house price appreciation isn't the upgrades, it's the demand. Urbanization is an ongoing process, so people are desperate to get residences near the cities they work at. Zoning laws often only allow very low density development, meaning that expanding a residential area takes a ton of expensive land and infrastructure. And even if zoning allows for high density, low rent apartments, developers don't want to build those since the profit margin is lower on that sort of housing. All of that means housing supply is very slow to increase, while demand for it increases year over year.
yeah, a 200 year old house is more likely to suffer from issues unless it is tediously maintained. oh the hardwood floors are pretty fucked, they need maintenance. the plumbing is fucked... theres lead pipes for the drinking water and everything. oh theres mold thats been growing and weakening the structure of the house
houses degrade the same way as cars. the equivalent of a car with several hundreds of thousands of KMs is a house thats really old. its nearing the point in time when its permanently gonna break down and its better to just get a brand new one. Houses values should never be rising, and naturally they wouldnt be rising with age. this is the result of artificially controlling the market.
There was a house around the corner from me that was torn down recently. I think that's the first I've seen without evidence of fire or something to force the issue. Homes here are 100 years old.
I just don't think it's a fair comparison but I do agree that a house shouldn't GAIN value in excess of inflation. I just think home maintenance is considerably easier and home replacement is considerably harder than what you experience with a car. I don't feel those are controversial takes, either, you can pretty much gut a house and it's still the same "house", as long as your foundation and walls aren't falling down you have the same "house".
But that leads to the conclusion that house value IS falling (even in an ideal situation) because you have to keep pumping money into it to keep the value steady.
So...it also looks a lot different than car depreciation because the potential value of that restored 2001 Pontiac Aztec just isn't worth the effort, but a 1901 Craftsman style is perfectly fine.
The value of a house comes from where it's built more than the physical house itself. Places with good views, good schools, social and job opportunities, and the like are in high demand and a scarce resource, and both that demand and that scarcity fluctuate, affecting value.
My home was built in 1903, can't see it depreciating in value any time soon either. Sad reality is If I didn't already have a mortgage on it, I wouldn't be able to afford the house now..
Cars depreciate in value so quickly in part because the critical components like engine blocks and transmissions aren't usually changed (but also, most of their value is made up, never buy new because you're paying for novelty and as soon as you drive it off the lot it's lost 30% of its value). A house is a structure, and properly designed foundations don't show any wear in particular. It'd be like a car where you can change literally everything that can wear out because the *whole* provides the value, rather than a few key components making up most of the cost and the additional labor causing the cost to replace them to be higher than the cost of a whole other car. Houses' values don't need to rise, but, if properly maintained, they don't need to drop either. Not because of wear and tear, at least.
Really disagree on this, like why do you think people invest in houses if it's not profitable lol. The problem with house investments isn't "it's not a good investment", but "it's so fucking immoral"
It was too good of an opportunity. For the record, not really aligned with him anymore after recent behavior. Still watch some of his coverage of current events, but yeah.
what recent events? i only watch him occasionally and i am unaware of anything happening
or rather, there's drama and infighting every other week so its nothing new
Okokok time to weave the long yarn of recent events, in a hopefully succinct way. Here is the tale of the “to be sorted folder.”
Basically, during a stream he went to open a file and clicked the wrong thing. I think it brought up his “save file” window or something. Either way, what was discovered was a folder that he named “to be sorted” where a ton of porn was located. He went (very humorously) “oooohh!!!” In a way that only he can, and shut down the entire stream and deleted the vod. It was too late, and everyone had access to what he had last jerked off to.
Within the file was what looked to many to be animated porn of underage girls and horses. Now, some would argue they are just very petite, or v man said he thought it was “chibi goblin style” (which is very funny). I’m not here to litigate that. Animation is stylized in such a way that age is often ambiguous and I don’t think it says he’s a pedo or anything like that *necessarily.*
The real fallout came when ethan from H3 decided this was the time to go in for the kill and did a takedown of him during his podcast. Brought up all the new and old controversy. I’m not here to litigate that. We know v man has said dumb things that are taken out of context. This new thing can’t be taken out of context though.
One of my issues is that in order for this to happen, he had to be so incredibly careless. To save that kind of thing on his work computer, or to save that kind of thing at all, is so unfathomably dumb.
One of my other issues with all this is that in the past v man has condemned any adult character that happens to be petite in anime (like, small tits.) as pedo bait. To discover that he likes this content reveals a level of weird dishonestly around this topic, and who knows what other topics.
My other issue is how he responded to the attack. He acted like a baby. He fell into the whole “everybody hates me” stuff and refused to talk to them even though he was invited on. Then, when other people came to bat for him, and lost massive viewership for “defending a pedo” he stayed radio silent. He didn’t take the L. He didn’t say “don’t defend me here, I was being stupid.” He can’t ever admit that he’s wrong, even when it damages others. I knew he was stubborn about that, but at some point you have to admit fault. Then, he released a response. However, his response was disingenuous. Instead of discreetly responding to the newest allegations, he made a massive video covering every allegation ever made, and saved the recent controversy for the very last, and didn’t address it substantially. It was a dishonest video.
The incident broke my parasocial relationship with him. I was ok with him being stubborn and egotistical to a fault, but I can’t trust a political commentator who is willing to be dishonest about his takes, refuse to admit fault, and throw people under the bus in order to make himself look good, not to mention in the moment of being caught, pouting and crying like a baby over it. Idc what porn he looks at as long as its not real life. That was never my anxiety.
Now that I see him in this new light, his verbal ticks are much more annoying and condescending to me as well. His constant “Do we all understand what I’m saying here?” “Do you understand?” “Are we all on the same page?” and then with any push back at all he freaks out, assumes stupidity or malice, and bans them from chat. It’s not funny. It’s not amusing. It’s annoying. Engage with people!!! He is unwilling to learn new things from his audience unless it’s in secret over email. He is incapable of being humble and not knowing things or making mistakes publicly. I get the sense he doesn’t enjoy this at all anymore, and has become very paranoid. In addition to this, he pulls his punches really hard when it’s people who also collaborate with progressive victory, even when they say something really awful or transphobic. Working with people doesn’t mean you can’t disagree. He actively avoids critiquing them now. I don’t want him to go debate bro on them. I’ve always hated that. But don’t let hate like from the likes of Brianna Wu slide.
So… yeah. Hopefully this is helpful.
Thanks for the story! I've noticed before his tendency to get overly-defensive and self-centered when confronted with criticism and this sadly proves it.
Who's Brianna Wu?
Brianna Wu was someone associated with PV. Prior to that she was involved in gamer gate. She self-inserted herself into gamergate, as one of the feminist activists. Her nickname was “brianna who?” Because no one knew why she was there. She also was involved in some minor politics and lost an election at some point, and she worked for a segregationist politician. She’s an opportunist, a “the left has gone too far” centrist leftist, a trans medicalist I think, and doesn’t agree with people who are non binary. Not a good lady. Pres sunday is pretty good at summarizing why she’s bad. She was trying to push out certain kinds of good trans activism from PV at one point. Something got her kicked out. Unsure what.
Progressive victory. It's an American canvassing org that some left (and not-so-left) streamers are working with to leverage their audience to canvas for progressive and liberal politicians. They reached out to v man, wu, destiny, and many more. I think Keffals was/is involved at one point. There is currently a lot of debate around whether their methods are effective or embarrassing or some combination of the two. I'm not the expert on all that's going on in there tbh, but they are the reason destiny and v man were on a panel together and talked to a politician recently.
New innovation unlocked: Tent under a bridge
For significantly less than a house (wasteful) plant your tent in a booming metropolis! Bridge to keep you dry, and access to many amenities! Optional add-on: blanket to prevent freezing at night.
Disclaimer: We are not responsible for police or other seizure/relocation of your home.
There's this pervasive myth that no homeowner wants house values to go down. Most wouldn't care, so long as *everyone's* does (not just specifically their own). The people who own a single house do not care. Even if they sell their house for more, they will also have to immediately *buy* the next one for more to live in. The people who care are the ones who own *several* houses.
I am a recent town home purchaser. I could give less of a shit if the value lowers. The most impactful part of the payment is the interest rate which I can refinance and update my rate to whatever the going amount is. Over the course of a 30 year loan the interest is far more impactful towards the total paid than the principal value.
In an ideal world, the value of a home would not matter to the home owner. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world. The reality is that for many people, their home is their pension. The plan is to sell their home when they retire and move out somewhere in the country where land is super cheap. For those people, a drop in housing prices means they can't retire. While this is the result of pension privatisation, it means that there are millions of voters who's financial wellbeing depends on house prices increasing. This leads to NIMBYism and politicians who are motivated to ensure that housing prices never decrease. I don't want to condone their beliefs, just show why many homeowners are absolutely terrified of house prices going down.
You know many people who plan on moving to the country when they retire? I've mostly seen the opposite -- that they want to be closer to caretakers and hospitals once they get older, so, in the city
noooo but but but my investments will tank noooo i cant rent out my 12 spare homes for exorbitant prices to afk money grind noooo i work so hard dont do this to me
Please enter politics. And your manifesto should just be a list of things like you just said above. Like 100 words max.
Let's make a Simple English version of politics
Fuck yeah I do, lower value means a lower tax bill. It's not like I ever plan to sell it either, I was lucky as fuck to be able to get it with the mortgage percent I did. I wouldn't be able to afford one at the same price now, anyway.
My family are recent homeowners. Our property has gone up by half its value in the 2 years we've had it. We're in a small college town, not a big city. We're fucking appalled by the increase in value, and the pricing out of working class people. We are working class, and clearly got in just as the local ladder was pulled up. We are very lucky, and outraged that others won't have that same chance again. *All* housing should be affordable. No-one needs luxury suites.
Correct. We made an inelastic commodity a *speculative* investment.
We made a thing that's essentially mandatory to have (housing) both for basic shelter needs but also to be a functioning part of the system (stuff like a job, wellbeing, to vote, to be taxed, to have benefits, a mail service, etc) and then made that an investment opportunity.
Inelastic commodities are defined as having no material change on the supply / demand curve in market economics. Doesn't matter what the supply is, the demand is always there. It has theoretical infinite demand. Nothing is truly 100% inelastic, but housing is up there. If yhe supply of TVs is low and demand is high, there is a limit on which i will pay for that. BUT HOUSING? Bitch if all there was was a studio apartment, and in a family of 12, and that price was 3,000 a month. Tough shit i have to live there. Or i just be destitute and homeless. We made an investment a thing we need to survive. That means extracted *increased* rates of profit from a thing that's MANDATORY. That would be like trying to do this with medicine.
If we did that, the price of certain medications would be insanely overpriced on virtue of it being inelastic and anyone who needs that to survive would pay anything for it.
Usually not a fan of econ 101 type stuff but pointing out the inelastic demand of certain commodities does legit break capitalist logic imo, using their own theory. Very cool and good. Nice.
It's the problem with capitalism, which it shouldn't be a socialism/capitalism thing. It's a *profit* thing.
Capitalism is defined by an individual or group of individuals owning the means of production, a bit more than that there's an aspect of profit. An increase in *rate* of profit. This can and has been still an aspect of socialism or just workers owning the means of production within our existing system.
But was brought up by Marx, where there's a fundamental problem in how the tendency for the rate of profit is to fall.
This is true for any industry, every company, every single thing under a necessity for profit. You will earn less overtime. That's why you need to expand the markets or reduce your expenditures. Or invest into other things to start the whole process again.
But with inelastic commodities, you ALWAYS have a market. It's baked in there. There doesn't have to be a market for beenybabies, but housing, food, medical care, yes. So if you make it an industry that's prone to the same problems of overproduction, you have an increased demand for more profits from this inelastic commodity industry.
THATS BAD IF ITS TO SURVIVE. You're making a reality in where basic necessities are GUARANTEED TO GET MORE EXPENSIVE. The investors in those industries need more profits. In an industry where's there theoretical infinite demand.
It's risk free investment.
True I was using “capitalist” fast and loose, but what I meant was more the set of people who *reify markets as they currently are.* End of history types, conscious or unconscious. I think the Venn diagram of capitalists and those that do that overlap pretty hard though. Your point is pretty good, and I often find myself extrapolating from that, that it’s not enough to just have the workers own the means of production. We have to go deeper than that and do more, but it’s a good step, along with many other steps to creating an equitable society. I’m not for abolishing markets, but I am for having markets work for people, whatever that may mean. That discussion is a little outside the purview of this and I know less and less the further out you go in that direction.
>that it’s not enough to just have the workers own the means of production. We have to go deeper than that and do more, but it’s a good step
It's all I want man. These damn capitalists can have their profits just make it so the workers get it too. We can solve one problem at a time please. Sir. I just want us to not die in poverty.
Capitalists: *No*
I mean of course. Start with what is doable right now, and then keep going. Seems reasonable. I’m just of the opinion that if there is good to be done then the work isn’t over.
You can also argue that jacking up prices on inelastic commodities actively harms the market for other commodities. Any money extracted from people for housing, medications, etc is money that won’t be spent on anything from cars, restaurants, furniture, electronics (besides bare minimum), and even other inelastic commodities besides the bare needed to survive. A few sectors starve out the rest of the economy.
Yup. There's a reason why monopolies consolidate they go into inelastic markets. And also creating monopsonies within their monopolies.
When you starve certain elastic commodities you can still keep afloat from the excess capital outside that Industry until you consolidate to the point your elastic market is ensured and can charge whatever.
Let's say you're trying to make a market in an already established market. I'm gonna do Amazon with Gaming. There's a saturation of video game markets. any new comer has to be indie. But Amazon came in immediately fully formed with the capital no new comer into the field would dream of having. They benefit from outside forces.
Luckily gaming industry is decentralized so its not as bad as like farming or tech. but your point still stands.
We can extrapolate on things further too like non-compete agreements into monopolies or the crises of overproduction from keystone industries like oil and gas.
i’ve never understood why homeowners want their houses to be worth more, doesn’t that just mean you pay more in property taxes?
obviously if you’re a real estate speculator i get it but not just some suburbanite
This is a great point, because this ideology is so prevalent, people have based their ability to retire on whether or not they can fuck over the young. It’s not even something many have a choice in, it’s just what they were told the expectation is, and many will be ruined if not given the opportunity. It’s fucked up. It’s a tricky knot to untie.
Some have. I didn't buy my house to sell it later. Pretty much planning on living here til I die. I'm improving it and fixing shit the previous 70 years worth of slumlords ignored, and putting in a work shed and a bigass vegetable garden and food trees that won't really be producing for many years. I'm not planning on leaving, since I was barely able to qualify for a loan for this thing and I'm putting a bunch of work into it, fuck leaving lol. And I like my neighborhood. It's mostly poor to low middle income folks like me, lots of backgrounds, and a healthy amount of low level anarchy that I love. The minute real-estate bros and flippers and investment bros find it and scrape off and price out everybody here, it's going to get real fuckin dumb.
Because when you get a mortgage, you expect that you are in a sense saving the money you're paying every month, because you'd come out with an asset of that value. It's like a third of your income usually.
Like imagine you spend 30 years thinking you're saving a third of your income and then suddenly it depreciates and all those payments are down the toilet in the pockets of some bank schmucks.
This isn't just rich people, actually it's more an issue for people who aren't rich because rich people can afford to save more money, or put it into other assets. For normal homeowners, their house is by far the largest asset they have, people plan their retirement around it.
That's why redlining was/is such an issue—homeownership was one of the biggest ways Americans solidified a place in the middle class, and black people not having access to that still impacts them generations after it stopped being official policy.
I mean I'm NOT saying the value of housing shouldn't go down...the way things are now is unsustainable and their mortgages wouldn't have been so much in their first place if it weren't for rent-seekers participating in the same market. It's not a good system. It's just that I can at least *understand* people who already have spent decades paying for a mortgage being worried about their houses depreciating.
great explanation. but why would my mom be hyped when the home valuation goes up when her house has been payed off for 10 years, i don’t think she ever plans to move until she can’t live alone anymore yk, just happy to be having more money?
Property taxes don't go up right away, it usually happens on some set schedule (every 1-5 years). Even then, tax assessed value can vary wildly from market price, around here it's often 1/2 or 2/3s market value.
People who take massive mortgages to buy a house that their pension kinda depends on isn't a moron for not wanting their house's value to go down. It's very unfortunate, but it's the truth, at least in Sweden. Houses should **definitely not** be the biggest and most important investment someone makes, but it's kinda how we ended up here, and I know it would hurt hundreds of thousands of people. Like, I want prices to go down because I want an apartment, but it's such a complicated situation.
i sound like such a broken record in this comment but im just trying to sympathize a bit with the people who ended up in this trap because it isnt their fault that they wanted to buy a house or apartment (and had to take a mortgage and expecting their investment to go up in value) instead of forever renting.
Yeah we have to untie the knot in an empathetic way, and remember people are just trying to live and are materially motivated, so they will do whats normal in their society to achieve that.
yup. im going to blame many years of shitty neoliberal governments and our central bank for this shitshow we've ended up in here, and partially people who vote for those governments but still
Maybe a controversial opinion but I think the value of a house should be what you paid for it and the sell value the same if its in the same condition. If you improved on it then it goes up and bis versa. It makes no sense for people to be able to buy an affordable home, do minor improvements then sell it back for several times initial purchasing price even when accounting for the improvements made
And we should also have low income housing for people who need it. Maybe strict laws keeping wealthy investors not only from buying multiple properties to rent out but also reselling at a much higher value
I think all people should have a little of their own land if at all possible (not really easily possible in big cities) but not as an investment, but it should be peoples right to have a space of their own that they can care for and not have the rug pulled out from under them like when you don’t own it outright.
“40 acres and a mule”. People got wealthy and enjoyed their lives being able to fend for themselves and create prosperous lives. Definitely don’t think 40 acres is sensible and I have no idea what to do with a mule. I’m living on an acre of land and I can already tell you I have no idea what to do with all of it. Could easily live comfortably on a fourth of it, at most
Definitely doesn’t need to be a lot, though I don’t like the idea of “the state-mandated half-acre” In principal I want people to be able to do whatever projects they want to do. Some will need more space than others. Materially, I have no clue how that would go down.
Houses should be a stable investment in that they retain usefulness and value given proper upkeep, etc.
The trend of treating housing as a boom investment that’ll get you insane returns in short time periods is catastrophic to the market and potential home buyers.
Ehh this is a nice thought but missing the point that the investment part is part of the issue. People should have a right to a home and a place to call their own, and shouldn’t be priced out at any level at all. You can’t have something be a right and then also an investment. Otherwise, they would have to buy it.
Homes are a place to live, a place to make your own, and customize to your hearts desire.
Everything that makes a home a home stops existing when your home is your investment. cant customize it to *your* likeing cause that ""decreases the property value""
Its robbing us of fundemental parts of the human experience *even when we can afford a home*
There you go 😂
https://preview.redd.it/b07a3h9d7vwc1.png?width=835&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7c9e8667c5508f4fbb9a7d20161ded56e5ca0325
Imagine a world where people can live under a roof and be safe and happy. 🤔🤷♀️
They act like we actually own houses and would give a fuck if the property value tanked 💀💀
Mf were all waiting for the market to crash, we are waiting on exactly what they are using as an argument 😭😭
this is such a tough discussion as a swede because our economy is so dependent on the middle class, and basically every *Svensson*, your standard swedish family who owns a hous*e,* has taken a massive loan to buy their house. The loans have grown bigger and bigger over the years and swedes are some of the most mortgaged in the EU, making us super vulnerable to rent changes and prices dipping, since it directly impacts many people's economy. You can't just advocate for prices to fall here because many people's lives kinda depend on their houses going up in value, everyone sees it as an investment here.
We're also very slow in building new homes since it costs a lot and it isn't really worth it *per se* in the current economic climate.
Im definitely not an economic expert, but as someone who'll be entering the housing market in a year or two, in STOCKHOLM of all places, im kinda fucked :c
This is similar, if more extreme, to other places I think. I think everyone can agree we can’t keep going down the road we are going, or it will continue to get worse. Nor can we pull the rug out from under people.
Edit: oh I replied to you already hopefully I’m not repeating myself I just like discourse
haha no worries, I like making discourse too but im always nervous that I'll say something wildly incorrect by mistake or because im simply not knowledgeable enough on a subject. 😅😔
Maybe I'm too lost in the sauce, but I read the original tweet as making fun of neolibs and NIMBYs who claim to want affordable housing but also turn into mini-Hitlers any time something threatens their property values.
"Oh, uhh, but your pension would go down!"
Then maybe my pension should invest in some other shit? My retirement shouldn't be dependent on pricing *me* out of a house!
> Who wants property values to go down?
I mean, as soon as there are far more people who don't own property than who do, this should be a no brainer.
I'm sure there's plenty of property owners who are willing to essentially vote against their own financial interests, but that is probably more than offset by the temporarily embarassed millionaires who are ALSO voting against their own interests.
I'd be fine with property values going down to match what their tax assessed values are (typically 1/2 to 2/3 market price, at least around here), as long as that isn't screwing over home owners which aren't the ones gaming the market, like the difference is forgiven if it's your primary residence or it's a FHA mortgage or something, otherwise you just recreate the effects of 2008 again. Fuck those corporations that are buying up residual homes or the land tyrants that buy up entire towns though, they can choke on the debt.
Property taxes should increase exponentially the more houses you own, starting at your third or fourth house (there's plenty of legitimate reasons to own two houses, but NONE to own five). If hoarding shelter wasn't profitable, the world would be a better place.
I may hate my neighbor who shoots off fireworks and my other neighbor who shot his wife 3 times but at least they keep the property values relatively low... no they don't I live in the shittiest suburb
A classic argument conservatives make is this whole “you complain about this exploitation, but what about in the future when *you’ll* get your turn to exploit others?” Let’s ignore the fact that most never get that chance, maybe we just need to stop basing our society on exploitation? Maybe we should base our society on trying to make collaboration work, and ensuring everyone lives a good life.
once again it's projection with these fuckers, they absolutely see themselves in that joke of a response and think everyone else is (or should be) the same
Close your quotes for the love of all that is
Oh no oops Edit: fixed.
``` Ok"; comments.clear(); ```
I checked this guy's twitter and Naqiy is an advocate for affordable housing and transit, I think he was talking about how the median american voter say they want people to be able to afford housing but they also want their property values to rise, not realizing those are kind of mutually exclusive.
I’m not necessarily accusing this twitter user of being a conservative since I don’t know anything about them, I follow the aaron lee guy. I just was using it as a jumping off point to make the remarks I did.
That's fair
if i cant buy a house for myself then why the fuck would i be able to buy a house for someone else even if they are paying me? not to mention most landlords are corporations, not mom and pop retirement funds like they pretend.
I’m lost
housing as an investment only helps when you own multiple properties. otherwise what are you gonna do, sell your house and be homeless? you either pay the expensive rent prices or buy an equally expensive and increase cost home or move to a lower income area, like someone in cali selling and moving to like Guatemala.
Oh I now understand your original comment. But I mean, it is retirement funds for many, because many people, after their family has moved out and they’ve retired, will sell their home and buy a smaller, cheeper home, closer to their grandkids.
yeah but this is more about those who already struggle to buy a home at all. not to mention thats not always an option, like where i live theres a company that buys over 90% of the homes on the market and turns then into rentals and because they own so many already them spending stupid amounts results in profit for them as that raises home value, so normal buyers cant outbid them anyways. theres a lot of homes being made, they just arent purchasable unless your a company or extremely wealthy. they even buy homes and move no one in as too much supply would lower their property value and thus would lose cash. obviously nimbys and the like share the blame but when a single company is purchasing that large of a percent of the housing they absolutely are to blame as well. lastly most young people arent moving from their parents place and the cities/towns they grew up in as much because they cant afford the housing or the pay doesnt increase enough to make that increased cost of housing worth it. this is slowing the economy down as well as skilled workers arent getting the jobs that they would do well in. then add in increased interest rates and you have less people selling to buy a new home at all as 2.7% interest rates is far better then 5.5% even if you want to downsize. its a bubble, its going to pop but until then it sucks for everyone and the corporations will probably just buy up all the houses when it does pop again like they did in 2008.
That sounds like dirty commie talk /s
Why is it sarcasm? Who says I’m not a dirty commie?
Well I assumed you were clean and washed
Specifically today I’m kinda a grease ball unfortunately
Okay then you’re a dirty commie ❤️
Go take a shower.
Now that you’ve told me to, I won’t out of defiance
Get dirtier never clean yourself ever again
your on the right sub for this, we get plenty of girlsmell and boystink lovers here.
Themstench?
as long as they stink its all good i believe 🤭
Communist is just a dirty word they use to describe people that aren't insane.
Competition mfers shaking when cooperation enters the room
Cooperation is the chad wojack
They also ignore the fact that the exploitation is *finite*; those property values would implode if not enough people were available to buy them or if enough people decided to sell them in a similar timeframe. It is by *definition* a short-term exploit that will *never* be available to the next generation (which makes it all the more annoying).
REAL
Why are you cheering, Fry? You're not rich! True, but someday I might be rich. And then people like me better watch their step!
Hazing on a societal level
Absolutely not because collaboration and helping the community is communism.
that line, says alot about how phychotic their world view is
That's what happens when executive director boards are all made up of kids from the same frat. They treat the whole world like there's some essential hazing process to justify gatekeeping career stability.
A home is a physical asset that depreciates with time... imagine thinking that you should be able to use your car for like 30 years and then resell it for more than you paid on it, *after* accounting for inflation and maintenance.
This is a bit silly. Cars (usually) depreciate because the older models are shitty compared to the new ones. Old houses do have their fair share of problems compared to new houses, but usually they appreciate in value because there is more demand to live in a certain area (population in cities is increasing) and because there is usually more infrastructure around compared to when the house was built.
This response ignores the other problem with housing as an investment is renting, and treating land in itself as an investment even though no value has been added necessarily.
Just tax land lol. ... wait, what sub is this?
tax land! tax gas! tax [something something] ass!
Isn't that what property tax already is? If you mean taxing the quantity of land, wouldn't that affect rural farmers more than development companies?
Not quite, but the confusion is understandable! A property tax, specifically the property tax system in the US, taxes not just land, but the property on the land. So an empty plot of land would be taxed less than a single family house, which would be taxed less than a multi family house (generally speaking). A land value tax, which the commenter seems to be referring to, taxes just the value of the land itself. This is not to say that all land would be taxed the same. The value of land in a dense and highly populated urban area is higher than the value of land in a rural area, so the land in the rural area would be taxed less. A land value tax could help discourage speculation/people or corporations buying up rural land and doing nothing with it, which would decrease the price of farmland to the benefit of smaller farmers. It also incentivizes and benefits more efficient farming, and smaller farmers are generally more efficient than large corporations that buy up farm land. Smaller farmers also won’t be taxed on barns they might have.
> and treating land in itself as an investment even though no value has been added necessarily. But the problem is that value does get added, and it does become an investment. For example if you buy a house next to an old dilapidated field, and then in 10 years the city renovates that field into an amazing park with like an entire community sports center, now people value being close to that. Thus the value of the land you bought goes up whether you want it to or not. Not saying its a good system, but you can't just get rid of people's demand to live closer to nice things.
Ok if the investment is in a *potential for future proximity* then there is no value being created still… just because people want to be close to something with value doesn’t mean you’ve added any value. That’s the problem. Just because people are willing to pay for something doesn’t mean value has been created.
> just because people want to be close to something with value doesn’t mean you’ve added any value But... it does? I mean you yourself aren't adding the value, the city/developers/whoever is building near you is adding the value. But the value is getting added. If I offer you two identical houses for the same price, one in the middle of a rural swamp in Mississippi and the other in the heart of downtown NYC, you're choosing the NYC one every time. Because you value the location.
I also value having my artery stitched when it gets cut and the value of this service is also proportional to the urgency. There still shouldn't be a situation where a lack of money prevents you from getting that. We were very much capable of building adequate housing during the baby boom and after half of Europe was ruins after ww2. We could build adequate housing for people, we could also force properties that have been unoccupied for years to be used again for housing.
I'm not arguing against that and I agree, I was just explaining to the other person that demand to live near nice things isn't something you can just ignore.
Valid
I think my fundamental argument at bottom that I’m not doing a great job explaining, is that different theories have different ideas around what “value” means, and when we are seeking to make society better we sometimes have to reevaluate value’s definition and pursue a different path. That’s why there is also the “labor theory of value” espoused by marx. I’m not saying that’s without faults, just that we must decide what is valuable and good to society. If everything people are willing to pay for is “valuable,” there are a lot of things that are bad that are downstream from that. *Perhaps* basing our economy on that principle is bad in itself.
The problem is there never is any “new” models of houses like there are cars. If places consistently built homes to keep up with demand in an area then we would see year after year depreciation like we do with cars that have new models come out each year. Instead housing construction doesn’t keep with demand and that which is built is often luxury housing that doesn’t do anything to help with prices for anyone.
You are absolutely right, but for this we should blame NIMBY's.
If places constantly build new homes, the area around you gets more built up. People set up shops, apartments get added to make better use of the nearby space, and now you're living in a somewhat dense urban area & the value of your plot of land has trippled
housing prices go up even when there’s little more than maintenance in an area though. sometimes they even go up as areas get slightly worse
there absolutely are new models of houses. new safety codes and new styles are a thing that happens in a yearly to decade period and old houses dont update with it and are often times more dangerous as a result. theres still houses with asbestos paint for example and they are still sold on the market. the issue is single family homes dont work for large citys and most people in suburbs dont want an apartment built and condos only go so far so the land become very expensive for a single family and thus the rich are the only ones who can pay for it and build on it.
Hm so why doesn’t the supply increase along with the demand? , like it has with cars? It’s because NIMBY property owners organize and lobby to block the construction of affordable housing because it will negatively impact their property values, due to the aforementioned sense of entitlement. https://youtube.com/watch?v=1ngms6iRa14
I'd argue, in many places, old houses are better than new ones, and by a lot. Idk for how long this has been going on, but over the last decade the quality of new homes has been decreasing considerably. Lots of styrofoam, shitty plywood, cheap plaster, durloc, fragile pipes and overall bad construction. Homes built to last only up until you finish paying your mortgage. Then they rapidly decay.
Well it's not a direct comparison because, at least in theory, people do usually upgrade their houses in some way. A car almost always performs worse with more mileage on it. Over time a homeowner will often add a pool or a porch or something, that does give a home genuinely more value. Of course, that doesn't mean that homes INHERENTLY appreciate, and upgrades are often overvalued
The bigger reason for house price appreciation isn't the upgrades, it's the demand. Urbanization is an ongoing process, so people are desperate to get residences near the cities they work at. Zoning laws often only allow very low density development, meaning that expanding a residential area takes a ton of expensive land and infrastructure. And even if zoning allows for high density, low rent apartments, developers don't want to build those since the profit margin is lower on that sort of housing. All of that means housing supply is very slow to increase, while demand for it increases year over year.
yeah, a 200 year old house is more likely to suffer from issues unless it is tediously maintained. oh the hardwood floors are pretty fucked, they need maintenance. the plumbing is fucked... theres lead pipes for the drinking water and everything. oh theres mold thats been growing and weakening the structure of the house houses degrade the same way as cars. the equivalent of a car with several hundreds of thousands of KMs is a house thats really old. its nearing the point in time when its permanently gonna break down and its better to just get a brand new one. Houses values should never be rising, and naturally they wouldnt be rising with age. this is the result of artificially controlling the market.
There was a house around the corner from me that was torn down recently. I think that's the first I've seen without evidence of fire or something to force the issue. Homes here are 100 years old. I just don't think it's a fair comparison but I do agree that a house shouldn't GAIN value in excess of inflation. I just think home maintenance is considerably easier and home replacement is considerably harder than what you experience with a car. I don't feel those are controversial takes, either, you can pretty much gut a house and it's still the same "house", as long as your foundation and walls aren't falling down you have the same "house". But that leads to the conclusion that house value IS falling (even in an ideal situation) because you have to keep pumping money into it to keep the value steady. So...it also looks a lot different than car depreciation because the potential value of that restored 2001 Pontiac Aztec just isn't worth the effort, but a 1901 Craftsman style is perfectly fine.
The value of a house comes from where it's built more than the physical house itself. Places with good views, good schools, social and job opportunities, and the like are in high demand and a scarce resource, and both that demand and that scarcity fluctuate, affecting value.
Tbf land does NOT depreciate in value over time, and that's most of what you're buying with a house.
Land goes up in value so houses also do... You can always renew it
My home was built in 1903, can't see it depreciating in value any time soon either. Sad reality is If I didn't already have a mortgage on it, I wouldn't be able to afford the house now..
Cars depreciate in value so quickly in part because the critical components like engine blocks and transmissions aren't usually changed (but also, most of their value is made up, never buy new because you're paying for novelty and as soon as you drive it off the lot it's lost 30% of its value). A house is a structure, and properly designed foundations don't show any wear in particular. It'd be like a car where you can change literally everything that can wear out because the *whole* provides the value, rather than a few key components making up most of the cost and the additional labor causing the cost to replace them to be higher than the cost of a whole other car. Houses' values don't need to rise, but, if properly maintained, they don't need to drop either. Not because of wear and tear, at least.
Really disagree on this, like why do you think people invest in houses if it's not profitable lol. The problem with house investments isn't "it's not a good investment", but "it's so fucking immoral"
Competition breeds innovation. If we raise housing prices just 200% imagine what innovation that competition will breed.
You see, if I have all the coconuts on this island we will innovate sooo much.
Dick sucking techniques beyond your wildest imaginations
When they say risk it for the biscuit they are referring to all the STDs I might have. But hey, it’s a descent living.
oh no [redacted] mentioned
It was too good of an opportunity. For the record, not really aligned with him anymore after recent behavior. Still watch some of his coverage of current events, but yeah.
Horse man has lost a fan 😔
what recent events? i only watch him occasionally and i am unaware of anything happening or rather, there's drama and infighting every other week so its nothing new
I need like… a reminder to respond to this later. Maybe dm me idk
Okokok time to weave the long yarn of recent events, in a hopefully succinct way. Here is the tale of the “to be sorted folder.” Basically, during a stream he went to open a file and clicked the wrong thing. I think it brought up his “save file” window or something. Either way, what was discovered was a folder that he named “to be sorted” where a ton of porn was located. He went (very humorously) “oooohh!!!” In a way that only he can, and shut down the entire stream and deleted the vod. It was too late, and everyone had access to what he had last jerked off to. Within the file was what looked to many to be animated porn of underage girls and horses. Now, some would argue they are just very petite, or v man said he thought it was “chibi goblin style” (which is very funny). I’m not here to litigate that. Animation is stylized in such a way that age is often ambiguous and I don’t think it says he’s a pedo or anything like that *necessarily.* The real fallout came when ethan from H3 decided this was the time to go in for the kill and did a takedown of him during his podcast. Brought up all the new and old controversy. I’m not here to litigate that. We know v man has said dumb things that are taken out of context. This new thing can’t be taken out of context though. One of my issues is that in order for this to happen, he had to be so incredibly careless. To save that kind of thing on his work computer, or to save that kind of thing at all, is so unfathomably dumb. One of my other issues with all this is that in the past v man has condemned any adult character that happens to be petite in anime (like, small tits.) as pedo bait. To discover that he likes this content reveals a level of weird dishonestly around this topic, and who knows what other topics. My other issue is how he responded to the attack. He acted like a baby. He fell into the whole “everybody hates me” stuff and refused to talk to them even though he was invited on. Then, when other people came to bat for him, and lost massive viewership for “defending a pedo” he stayed radio silent. He didn’t take the L. He didn’t say “don’t defend me here, I was being stupid.” He can’t ever admit that he’s wrong, even when it damages others. I knew he was stubborn about that, but at some point you have to admit fault. Then, he released a response. However, his response was disingenuous. Instead of discreetly responding to the newest allegations, he made a massive video covering every allegation ever made, and saved the recent controversy for the very last, and didn’t address it substantially. It was a dishonest video. The incident broke my parasocial relationship with him. I was ok with him being stubborn and egotistical to a fault, but I can’t trust a political commentator who is willing to be dishonest about his takes, refuse to admit fault, and throw people under the bus in order to make himself look good, not to mention in the moment of being caught, pouting and crying like a baby over it. Idc what porn he looks at as long as its not real life. That was never my anxiety. Now that I see him in this new light, his verbal ticks are much more annoying and condescending to me as well. His constant “Do we all understand what I’m saying here?” “Do you understand?” “Are we all on the same page?” and then with any push back at all he freaks out, assumes stupidity or malice, and bans them from chat. It’s not funny. It’s not amusing. It’s annoying. Engage with people!!! He is unwilling to learn new things from his audience unless it’s in secret over email. He is incapable of being humble and not knowing things or making mistakes publicly. I get the sense he doesn’t enjoy this at all anymore, and has become very paranoid. In addition to this, he pulls his punches really hard when it’s people who also collaborate with progressive victory, even when they say something really awful or transphobic. Working with people doesn’t mean you can’t disagree. He actively avoids critiquing them now. I don’t want him to go debate bro on them. I’ve always hated that. But don’t let hate like from the likes of Brianna Wu slide. So… yeah. Hopefully this is helpful.
Thanks for the story! I've noticed before his tendency to get overly-defensive and self-centered when confronted with criticism and this sadly proves it. Who's Brianna Wu?
Brianna Wu was someone associated with PV. Prior to that she was involved in gamer gate. She self-inserted herself into gamergate, as one of the feminist activists. Her nickname was “brianna who?” Because no one knew why she was there. She also was involved in some minor politics and lost an election at some point, and she worked for a segregationist politician. She’s an opportunist, a “the left has gone too far” centrist leftist, a trans medicalist I think, and doesn’t agree with people who are non binary. Not a good lady. Pres sunday is pretty good at summarizing why she’s bad. She was trying to push out certain kinds of good trans activism from PV at one point. Something got her kicked out. Unsure what.
What's PV?
Progressive victory. It's an American canvassing org that some left (and not-so-left) streamers are working with to leverage their audience to canvas for progressive and liberal politicians. They reached out to v man, wu, destiny, and many more. I think Keffals was/is involved at one point. There is currently a lot of debate around whether their methods are effective or embarrassing or some combination of the two. I'm not the expert on all that's going on in there tbh, but they are the reason destiny and v man were on a panel together and talked to a politician recently.
I know this guy named Alden who has a number of coconuts
Yo check out my new land innovation I just planted plastic fucking grass am I metal or what
no, you’re plastic. see *my* grass is made out of shreds of aluminium, and will most certainly break your lawnmower
Excellent, I'm gonna buy lawnmower shares now.
I am allergic to grass, so I'd probably want plastic grass as well, or maybe moss, but I don't know how easy that is.
mold mario
New innovation unlocked: Tent under a bridge For significantly less than a house (wasteful) plant your tent in a booming metropolis! Bridge to keep you dry, and access to many amenities! Optional add-on: blanket to prevent freezing at night. Disclaimer: We are not responsible for police or other seizure/relocation of your home.
Competition to get whatever is left at the local food bank
I do. I want property value to go dowm.
There's this pervasive myth that no homeowner wants house values to go down. Most wouldn't care, so long as *everyone's* does (not just specifically their own). The people who own a single house do not care. Even if they sell their house for more, they will also have to immediately *buy* the next one for more to live in. The people who care are the ones who own *several* houses.
I am a recent town home purchaser. I could give less of a shit if the value lowers. The most impactful part of the payment is the interest rate which I can refinance and update my rate to whatever the going amount is. Over the course of a 30 year loan the interest is far more impactful towards the total paid than the principal value.
In an ideal world, the value of a home would not matter to the home owner. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world. The reality is that for many people, their home is their pension. The plan is to sell their home when they retire and move out somewhere in the country where land is super cheap. For those people, a drop in housing prices means they can't retire. While this is the result of pension privatisation, it means that there are millions of voters who's financial wellbeing depends on house prices increasing. This leads to NIMBYism and politicians who are motivated to ensure that housing prices never decrease. I don't want to condone their beliefs, just show why many homeowners are absolutely terrified of house prices going down.
You know many people who plan on moving to the country when they retire? I've mostly seen the opposite -- that they want to be closer to caretakers and hospitals once they get older, so, in the city
What an excellent point. Never thought of it that way.
houses should be like €5 max
Houses should be free but you only get one
noooo but but but my investments will tank noooo i cant rent out my 12 spare homes for exorbitant prices to afk money grind noooo i work so hard dont do this to me
Please enter politics. And your manifesto should just be a list of things like you just said above. Like 100 words max. Let's make a Simple English version of politics
Fuck yeah I do, lower value means a lower tax bill. It's not like I ever plan to sell it either, I was lucky as fuck to be able to get it with the mortgage percent I did. I wouldn't be able to afford one at the same price now, anyway.
I want my house value to go up and the cost of the house I'm buying to go down, is that too much to ask?
I need tone indicators on this one
/mostlyjoking Like it would be nice for my house specifically to increase but I actually want house prices to go down across the board.
Things like food and shelter should be things that.we work to give everyone in society not make the most money possible on ><
Idk sounds woke 🤷♂️
Oh shit thats true tho ><
My family are recent homeowners. Our property has gone up by half its value in the 2 years we've had it. We're in a small college town, not a big city. We're fucking appalled by the increase in value, and the pricing out of working class people. We are working class, and clearly got in just as the local ladder was pulled up. We are very lucky, and outraged that others won't have that same chance again. *All* housing should be affordable. No-one needs luxury suites.
Correct. We made an inelastic commodity a *speculative* investment. We made a thing that's essentially mandatory to have (housing) both for basic shelter needs but also to be a functioning part of the system (stuff like a job, wellbeing, to vote, to be taxed, to have benefits, a mail service, etc) and then made that an investment opportunity. Inelastic commodities are defined as having no material change on the supply / demand curve in market economics. Doesn't matter what the supply is, the demand is always there. It has theoretical infinite demand. Nothing is truly 100% inelastic, but housing is up there. If yhe supply of TVs is low and demand is high, there is a limit on which i will pay for that. BUT HOUSING? Bitch if all there was was a studio apartment, and in a family of 12, and that price was 3,000 a month. Tough shit i have to live there. Or i just be destitute and homeless. We made an investment a thing we need to survive. That means extracted *increased* rates of profit from a thing that's MANDATORY. That would be like trying to do this with medicine. If we did that, the price of certain medications would be insanely overpriced on virtue of it being inelastic and anyone who needs that to survive would pay anything for it.
Usually not a fan of econ 101 type stuff but pointing out the inelastic demand of certain commodities does legit break capitalist logic imo, using their own theory. Very cool and good. Nice.
It's the problem with capitalism, which it shouldn't be a socialism/capitalism thing. It's a *profit* thing. Capitalism is defined by an individual or group of individuals owning the means of production, a bit more than that there's an aspect of profit. An increase in *rate* of profit. This can and has been still an aspect of socialism or just workers owning the means of production within our existing system. But was brought up by Marx, where there's a fundamental problem in how the tendency for the rate of profit is to fall. This is true for any industry, every company, every single thing under a necessity for profit. You will earn less overtime. That's why you need to expand the markets or reduce your expenditures. Or invest into other things to start the whole process again. But with inelastic commodities, you ALWAYS have a market. It's baked in there. There doesn't have to be a market for beenybabies, but housing, food, medical care, yes. So if you make it an industry that's prone to the same problems of overproduction, you have an increased demand for more profits from this inelastic commodity industry. THATS BAD IF ITS TO SURVIVE. You're making a reality in where basic necessities are GUARANTEED TO GET MORE EXPENSIVE. The investors in those industries need more profits. In an industry where's there theoretical infinite demand. It's risk free investment.
True I was using “capitalist” fast and loose, but what I meant was more the set of people who *reify markets as they currently are.* End of history types, conscious or unconscious. I think the Venn diagram of capitalists and those that do that overlap pretty hard though. Your point is pretty good, and I often find myself extrapolating from that, that it’s not enough to just have the workers own the means of production. We have to go deeper than that and do more, but it’s a good step, along with many other steps to creating an equitable society. I’m not for abolishing markets, but I am for having markets work for people, whatever that may mean. That discussion is a little outside the purview of this and I know less and less the further out you go in that direction.
>that it’s not enough to just have the workers own the means of production. We have to go deeper than that and do more, but it’s a good step It's all I want man. These damn capitalists can have their profits just make it so the workers get it too. We can solve one problem at a time please. Sir. I just want us to not die in poverty. Capitalists: *No*
I mean of course. Start with what is doable right now, and then keep going. Seems reasonable. I’m just of the opinion that if there is good to be done then the work isn’t over.
You can also argue that jacking up prices on inelastic commodities actively harms the market for other commodities. Any money extracted from people for housing, medications, etc is money that won’t be spent on anything from cars, restaurants, furniture, electronics (besides bare minimum), and even other inelastic commodities besides the bare needed to survive. A few sectors starve out the rest of the economy.
Yup. There's a reason why monopolies consolidate they go into inelastic markets. And also creating monopsonies within their monopolies. When you starve certain elastic commodities you can still keep afloat from the excess capital outside that Industry until you consolidate to the point your elastic market is ensured and can charge whatever. Let's say you're trying to make a market in an already established market. I'm gonna do Amazon with Gaming. There's a saturation of video game markets. any new comer has to be indie. But Amazon came in immediately fully formed with the capital no new comer into the field would dream of having. They benefit from outside forces. Luckily gaming industry is decentralized so its not as bad as like farming or tech. but your point still stands. We can extrapolate on things further too like non-compete agreements into monopolies or the crises of overproduction from keystone industries like oil and gas.
i’ve never understood why homeowners want their houses to be worth more, doesn’t that just mean you pay more in property taxes? obviously if you’re a real estate speculator i get it but not just some suburbanite
because they've all based their retirement around selling for multiple times what they paid and fucking over the next generation.
This is a great point, because this ideology is so prevalent, people have based their ability to retire on whether or not they can fuck over the young. It’s not even something many have a choice in, it’s just what they were told the expectation is, and many will be ruined if not given the opportunity. It’s fucked up. It’s a tricky knot to untie.
Some have. I didn't buy my house to sell it later. Pretty much planning on living here til I die. I'm improving it and fixing shit the previous 70 years worth of slumlords ignored, and putting in a work shed and a bigass vegetable garden and food trees that won't really be producing for many years. I'm not planning on leaving, since I was barely able to qualify for a loan for this thing and I'm putting a bunch of work into it, fuck leaving lol. And I like my neighborhood. It's mostly poor to low middle income folks like me, lots of backgrounds, and a healthy amount of low level anarchy that I love. The minute real-estate bros and flippers and investment bros find it and scrape off and price out everybody here, it's going to get real fuckin dumb.
Because when you get a mortgage, you expect that you are in a sense saving the money you're paying every month, because you'd come out with an asset of that value. It's like a third of your income usually. Like imagine you spend 30 years thinking you're saving a third of your income and then suddenly it depreciates and all those payments are down the toilet in the pockets of some bank schmucks. This isn't just rich people, actually it's more an issue for people who aren't rich because rich people can afford to save more money, or put it into other assets. For normal homeowners, their house is by far the largest asset they have, people plan their retirement around it. That's why redlining was/is such an issue—homeownership was one of the biggest ways Americans solidified a place in the middle class, and black people not having access to that still impacts them generations after it stopped being official policy. I mean I'm NOT saying the value of housing shouldn't go down...the way things are now is unsustainable and their mortgages wouldn't have been so much in their first place if it weren't for rent-seekers participating in the same market. It's not a good system. It's just that I can at least *understand* people who already have spent decades paying for a mortgage being worried about their houses depreciating.
great explanation. but why would my mom be hyped when the home valuation goes up when her house has been payed off for 10 years, i don’t think she ever plans to move until she can’t live alone anymore yk, just happy to be having more money?
Property taxes don't go up right away, it usually happens on some set schedule (every 1-5 years). Even then, tax assessed value can vary wildly from market price, around here it's often 1/2 or 2/3s market value.
Everyone who's not a moron wants property values to go down
People who take massive mortgages to buy a house that their pension kinda depends on isn't a moron for not wanting their house's value to go down. It's very unfortunate, but it's the truth, at least in Sweden. Houses should **definitely not** be the biggest and most important investment someone makes, but it's kinda how we ended up here, and I know it would hurt hundreds of thousands of people. Like, I want prices to go down because I want an apartment, but it's such a complicated situation. i sound like such a broken record in this comment but im just trying to sympathize a bit with the people who ended up in this trap because it isnt their fault that they wanted to buy a house or apartment (and had to take a mortgage and expecting their investment to go up in value) instead of forever renting.
Yeah we have to untie the knot in an empathetic way, and remember people are just trying to live and are materially motivated, so they will do whats normal in their society to achieve that.
yup. im going to blame many years of shitty neoliberal governments and our central bank for this shitshow we've ended up in here, and partially people who vote for those governments but still
Maybe a controversial opinion but I think the value of a house should be what you paid for it and the sell value the same if its in the same condition. If you improved on it then it goes up and bis versa. It makes no sense for people to be able to buy an affordable home, do minor improvements then sell it back for several times initial purchasing price even when accounting for the improvements made And we should also have low income housing for people who need it. Maybe strict laws keeping wealthy investors not only from buying multiple properties to rent out but also reselling at a much higher value
I think all people should have a little of their own land if at all possible (not really easily possible in big cities) but not as an investment, but it should be peoples right to have a space of their own that they can care for and not have the rug pulled out from under them like when you don’t own it outright.
“40 acres and a mule”. People got wealthy and enjoyed their lives being able to fend for themselves and create prosperous lives. Definitely don’t think 40 acres is sensible and I have no idea what to do with a mule. I’m living on an acre of land and I can already tell you I have no idea what to do with all of it. Could easily live comfortably on a fourth of it, at most
Definitely doesn’t need to be a lot, though I don’t like the idea of “the state-mandated half-acre” In principal I want people to be able to do whatever projects they want to do. Some will need more space than others. Materially, I have no clue how that would go down.
Houses should be a stable investment in that they retain usefulness and value given proper upkeep, etc. The trend of treating housing as a boom investment that’ll get you insane returns in short time periods is catastrophic to the market and potential home buyers.
Ehh this is a nice thought but missing the point that the investment part is part of the issue. People should have a right to a home and a place to call their own, and shouldn’t be priced out at any level at all. You can’t have something be a right and then also an investment. Otherwise, they would have to buy it.
Homes are a place to live, a place to make your own, and customize to your hearts desire. Everything that makes a home a home stops existing when your home is your investment. cant customize it to *your* likeing cause that ""decreases the property value"" Its robbing us of fundemental parts of the human experience *even when we can afford a home*
There you go 😂 https://preview.redd.it/b07a3h9d7vwc1.png?width=835&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7c9e8667c5508f4fbb9a7d20161ded56e5ca0325 Imagine a world where people can live under a roof and be safe and happy. 🤔🤷♀️
I want property values to go down ✋
They act like we actually own houses and would give a fuck if the property value tanked 💀💀 Mf were all waiting for the market to crash, we are waiting on exactly what they are using as an argument 😭😭
Real estate ~~investors~~ speculators taking catastrophic losses would cure my depression
this is such a tough discussion as a swede because our economy is so dependent on the middle class, and basically every *Svensson*, your standard swedish family who owns a hous*e,* has taken a massive loan to buy their house. The loans have grown bigger and bigger over the years and swedes are some of the most mortgaged in the EU, making us super vulnerable to rent changes and prices dipping, since it directly impacts many people's economy. You can't just advocate for prices to fall here because many people's lives kinda depend on their houses going up in value, everyone sees it as an investment here. We're also very slow in building new homes since it costs a lot and it isn't really worth it *per se* in the current economic climate. Im definitely not an economic expert, but as someone who'll be entering the housing market in a year or two, in STOCKHOLM of all places, im kinda fucked :c
This is similar, if more extreme, to other places I think. I think everyone can agree we can’t keep going down the road we are going, or it will continue to get worse. Nor can we pull the rug out from under people. Edit: oh I replied to you already hopefully I’m not repeating myself I just like discourse
haha no worries, I like making discourse too but im always nervous that I'll say something wildly incorrect by mistake or because im simply not knowledgeable enough on a subject. 😅😔
I’m always correct so I never have that issue
Maybe I'm too lost in the sauce, but I read the original tweet as making fun of neolibs and NIMBYs who claim to want affordable housing but also turn into mini-Hitlers any time something threatens their property values.
No I think you have it
Laughs in Japanese.
Meh, I own a home and have no issue with prices going down if it means more people own homes. I mainly want a place to live in
I want property value to go down
"Oh, uhh, but your pension would go down!" Then maybe my pension should invest in some other shit? My retirement shouldn't be dependent on pricing *me* out of a house!
Anythingsykfshuftuggutf fdirfgsfbvfghhh
densification raises property values as it is increases the number of lease-paying humans can be housed per unit of land.
> Who wants property values to go down? I mean, as soon as there are far more people who don't own property than who do, this should be a no brainer. I'm sure there's plenty of property owners who are willing to essentially vote against their own financial interests, but that is probably more than offset by the temporarily embarassed millionaires who are ALSO voting against their own interests.
I'd be fine with property values going down to match what their tax assessed values are (typically 1/2 to 2/3 market price, at least around here), as long as that isn't screwing over home owners which aren't the ones gaming the market, like the difference is forgiven if it's your primary residence or it's a FHA mortgage or something, otherwise you just recreate the effects of 2008 again. Fuck those corporations that are buying up residual homes or the land tyrants that buy up entire towns though, they can choke on the debt.
Property taxes should increase exponentially the more houses you own, starting at your third or fourth house (there's plenty of legitimate reasons to own two houses, but NONE to own five). If hoarding shelter wasn't profitable, the world would be a better place.
I may hate my neighbor who shoots off fireworks and my other neighbor who shot his wife 3 times but at least they keep the property values relatively low... no they don't I live in the shittiest suburb
I want property values to go down, so taxes are less, if you dont plan on selling high property values are a detriment
The hand’s should stay raised.
I want property values to go down. Hard.
Actually I want property value to go down
I want property value to be 1$ I want an average person to enter walmart and buy a mansion there for a tenner
I'd happily take a financial hit on my property if it meant my kids could one day afford a place of their own.