If people really thought that companies buying real estate might, at most, contribute a few percent of the price, while limited supply has led to price increases of hundreds of percent, then we’d be getting constant memes about insufficient house-building and pushes to change that, rather than this kind of thing.
I want to change the narrative, because if all people hear is “COMPANIES ARE BUYING UP HOUSES AND JACKING UP RENTS” they won’t push for the policies which will have a bigger impact.
EDIT: Here is a chart of the ratio of population growth to house-building in the USA. Notice that it’s increased from about 1.5 to about 2.5. That is a massive difference. A company with 17% of the homes in a city can squeeze residents in that city for 17% of its available housing if they don’t mind sitting on an asset that isn’t paying them anything.
Meanwhile, the population has increased by about 50%, but you only built homes for half that. That’s a bigger effect even if you believe that companies are willing to sit on vast quantities of empty housing, which we know they’re not.
If there isn’t an overabundance of food (as you yourself admit, housing is insufficient).
This whole time I’ve been trying to tell you, “no, that is actually a problem” because you started off by minimizing the contribution of corporate interests to the housing problem. I guess I should have made the the implied “as well” more obvious, but it was always there.
You didn’t start off with “we need more housing”. You started off with “it’s not the companies and they are good actually”.
So no, I wasn’t gonna reply with “yes, and”. I didn’t have the option because what you started with needed actual refuting, first.
If people really thought that companies buying real estate might, at most, contribute a few percent of the price, while limited supply has led to price increases of hundreds of percent, then we’d be getting constant memes about insufficient house-building and pushes to change that, rather than this kind of thing.
I want to change the narrative, because if all people hear is “COMPANIES ARE BUYING UP HOUSES AND JACKING UP RENTS” they won’t push for the policies which will have a bigger impact.
EDIT: Here is a chart of the ratio of population growth to house-building in the USA. Notice that it’s increased from about 1.5 to about 2.5. That is a massive difference. A company with 17% of the homes in a city can squeeze residents in that city for 17% of its available housing if they don’t mind sitting on an asset that isn’t paying them anything.
Meanwhile, the population has increased by about 50%, but you only built homes for half that. That’s a bigger effect even if you believe that companies are willing to sit on vast quantities of empty housing, which we know they’re not.
Did I at some point say we don’t need more housing?
Protip: switch to “yes, and”.
You won’t get a positive response by continuing with “no, actually”.
I believe these same corporate forces are a major reason why housing isn’t being built. Hence my focus is on them, not simply “build more homes”.
In my city, homes are being built, but only by the rich for the rich. I’m finnish, btw.
Right back atcha, pal. You had ample opportunity to agree that the biggest problem is lack of housing. Instead you embraced the narrative of the OP.
In my very first reply to you:
This whole time I’ve been trying to tell you, “no, that is actually a problem” because you started off by minimizing the contribution of corporate interests to the housing problem. I guess I should have made the the implied “as well” more obvious, but it was always there.
You didn’t start off with “we need more housing”. You started off with “it’s not the companies and they are good actually”.
So no, I wasn’t gonna reply with “yes, and”. I didn’t have the option because what you started with needed actual refuting, first.
OK. I don’t think we disagree over very much at this point.