The Stock Market Is Not The Economy Thread II

[kuronosan]

Except we are, and the only reason people fill apartments is because houses are unobtainable at their current pricing and the only alternative is the streets or dangerous areas.

It's not rocket science. It's not a supply issue. It's a cost issue.

[Krandor]

If only there was quantifiable evidence that supply and demand (cost) are intertwined

[kuronosan]

You can manipulate demand and supply lol

[Zealot]

I demand to be supplied a house.

[Zetanio]

we aren't even close to having enough housing supply. current available supply is the lowest in like 40 years.

[Mertron]

I demand to be supplied a house.

demand this dick to be supplied to your mouth BOOM GOTTEM

[Andalusian girls]

we aren't even close to having enough housing supply. current available supply is the lowest in like 40 years.

missing literally millions of homes in the aggregate, something between 6-15 million, and people still arguing it's all greed and building new homes is pointless because they saw a luxury apartment go up in their city smh

a fundamental failure of understanding is that yes there is greed, yes there is price gouging and market manipulation, and those things are enabled by the lack of supply more than by anything else. human nature doesn't change, rather the circumstances in which its best or worst impulses may be channeled. greed assumes a different shape in a market flooded with supply than it does in one marked by scarcity.

[Zetanio]

yeah we didn't just reinvent greed.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...sing-inventory

numbers go down is bad

[Zetanio]

zoning is the real enemy

[Andalusian girls]

devastating graph for the American Dream. feel for all in this generation and the next who didn't lock in a house early / aren't set to inherit / didn't make it to the 10%

[Zetanio]

we basically need to double/2.5x the housing supply in a decently fast way

[Cantih]

As I understand it though, even if you fix zoning it won't really help.
Because units that are affordable, (actually affordable, the 30% of single earner income for bottom quintile), can't be built in a way that the dRoI is acceptable to the market, so they wont give a shit.
The only other thing is government sourced building, but between the all the issues there, and the memory of the projects, that's a no go either.

[zoobernut]

I think one of the other issues that isn't discussed is people don't really want to move around. They want to stay where they are. This means each individual area needs to be treated separately and has its own host of issues. I know where I live space is definitely an issue and NIMBYism which restricts bigger buildings and denser housing. I also know that vacation rentals and vacation homes/absentee land owners has a huge affect too. People want a solution without being pushed around by rich people. They want to live where they want to live.

Ultimately building more and more housing until the housing market is over saturated is the answer. We are so far behind though right now that new housing being built is still offered at an inflated rate. There was a huge housing development that went up in Fort Ord in Monterey County and all the houses are $1million+ and a lot of them are empty because no one can afford them. That whole development was advertised as one thing and then once they got the approval and permits became something else.

Also making housing affordable isn't a good ROI for developers.

[Zetanio]

yeh and again, you just need new stuff built and people utilizing the new stuff, the market does the rest. If we build 500,000 "luxury" houses or apartment units or whatever in the places that need housing, you'd see the middle sector housing prices moderate and drop. This is an observable trend.

See you know how they built all those houses are they're advertising them for a million+ bux? if no one actually buys them ever, the company will drop the price. you can't sit on that kind of carrying cost forever and the investors will demand returns. if all of those units are sold, the folks moving in will sell their current houses, etc etc etc all the way down the line. this is how home ownership grows. the problem is that you can't build enough new shit (esp multis) in a lot of places because of zoning/NIMBY/racism. There is a LOT of lip service paid to these kind of issues both in the news and across the internet. i see get to see it firsthand out here on the Cape because everyone's a fuckin loud and proud liberal until teachers and firefighters need fuckin local housing, then they need to grab their bootstraps out and pull.

[Zetanio]

also should prolly do a national ban on corporations owning single family homes or apartments.

[Byrthnoth]

Yeah, looks like the DC occupancy rate is still about 95% even with all the new buildings.

[Zetanio]

sounds like they need more housing.

[TsingTao]

also should prolly do a national ban on corporations owning single family homes or apartments.

This right here.

[Richybear]

Here in the mid 2000's (so like 2004-06 ish) there was a huge boom on places making single family housing, but shit was rushed. a ton of fly by night housing companies popped up to build things thinking "if one house is 400k, i'll make 395490354 of them!" But between houses getting partially started then said builder running out of money so nothing finished, or not even having to know how to spell hammer, let alone swing one and you were a "framer", it was a shitshow. I was working in a building supply company at the time and it was unreal how many new builders popped in as clients and were gone within a year to 18 months.

[archibaldcrane]

also should prolly do a national ban on corporations owning single family homes or apartments.

Unclear why a "corporation" owning an apartment building is meaningfully different than the company that currently owns it.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk