8 ms·

This has been disproven so many times. There’s more vacant homes in the US than homeless people. But homes == money. As someone who is a real estate investor, i

This has been disproven so many times. There’s more vacant homes in the US than homeless people. But homes == money. As someone who is a real estate investor, it’s no secret, we are jacking up the prices. It’s what we do for a living.

gottorf 3y ago
> This has been disproven so many times. There’s more vacant homes in the US than homeless people. It hasn't been disproven. There being more vacant homes than homeless people just means that the market isn't clearing, because the minimum price acceptable to the landlord is higher than the maximum price acceptable to the homeless. This could be from any number of reasons, none of which "disprove" the fact that the laws of supply and demand do in fact apply to housing. As an analogy, there are always jobless people even when there are vacant positions to fill. Why? Because of a mismatch between the price of labor, which is artificially inflated by minimum wage laws and another hundred laws and regulations that make it costlier to employ someone, and the economic value generated by that labor.
- jan3024 3y ago
  I consider the fact there’s a surplus of housing to disprove the fact that there’s a shortage of housing. Seems obvious to me.
  - cglan 3y ago
    Housing surplus != housing surplus in liveable areas, or at least areas with work
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Those houses are also not in places where people want to be. We don't have a nation-wide housing crisis, rather we have a top 20 city housing crisis.
sjwhevvvvvsj 3y ago
“it’s no secret, we are jacking up the prices. It’s what we do for a living.” And as with many other ways to make a living at the expense of society - such as fraud, theft, and abuse - it should be illegal.
- memen 3y ago
  You could make the case for the opposite: - there is a housing shortage - as a society, we should make sure that resources are available for the ones who need it most - people who earn more money, deliver more value to society (not necessarily true of course, but well, capitalism) - as a society, houses should be available for the highest earners first Therefore, everyone should increase prices as much as possible. Until you cannot sell or rent to anyone, then you lower slightly until you can.
  - sjwhevvvvvsj 3y ago
    Great idea, but incomplete. I think you need to take the logical next step that those that aren’t valuable in terms of earning power should be executed en mass to make commutes of the wealthy more enjoyable. How many people clogging up 101 really need to be alive anyway?
    - NoGravitas 3y ago
      They don't have to be executed; just stash them away someplace where the wealthy can't see them, don't let them leave, and let them basically fend for themselves. Needs a sympathetic name, though... maybe something like "Sanctuary Districts".
dmazzoni 3y ago
The homes aren't where the jobs are, though. Who cares if there are vacant homes in downtown Detroit for sale or rent? If you moved there you wouldn't be able to get a job
- jan3024 3y ago
  Well the reverse is also true.

gottorf 3y ago

> This has been disproven so many times. There’s more vacant homes in the US than homeless people. It hasn't been disproven. There being more vacant homes than homeless people just means that the market isn't clearing, because the minimum price acceptable to the landlord is higher than the maximum price acceptable to the homeless. This could be from any number of reasons, none of which "disprove" the fact that the laws of supply and demand do in fact apply to housing. As an analogy, there are always jobless people even when there are vacant positions to fill. Why? Because of a mismatch between the price of labor, which is artificially inflated by minimum wage laws and another hundred laws and regulations that make it costlier to employ someone, and the economic value generated by that labor.

jan3024 3y ago
I consider the fact there’s a surplus of housing to disprove the fact that there’s a shortage of housing. Seems obvious to me.
- cglan 3y ago
  Housing surplus != housing surplus in liveable areas, or at least areas with work
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Those houses are also not in places where people want to be. We don't have a nation-wide housing crisis, rather we have a top 20 city housing crisis.

sjwhevvvvvsj 3y ago

“it’s no secret, we are jacking up the prices. It’s what we do for a living.” And as with many other ways to make a living at the expense of society - such as fraud, theft, and abuse - it should be illegal.

memen 3y ago
You could make the case for the opposite: - there is a housing shortage - as a society, we should make sure that resources are available for the ones who need it most - people who earn more money, deliver more value to society (not necessarily true of course, but well, capitalism) - as a society, houses should be available for the highest earners first Therefore, everyone should increase prices as much as possible. Until you cannot sell or rent to anyone, then you lower slightly until you can.
- sjwhevvvvvsj 3y ago
  Great idea, but incomplete. I think you need to take the logical next step that those that aren’t valuable in terms of earning power should be executed en mass to make commutes of the wealthy more enjoyable. How many people clogging up 101 really need to be alive anyway?
  - NoGravitas 3y ago
    They don't have to be executed; just stash them away someplace where the wealthy can't see them, don't let them leave, and let them basically fend for themselves. Needs a sympathetic name, though... maybe something like "Sanctuary Districts".

dmazzoni 3y ago

The homes aren't where the jobs are, though. Who cares if there are vacant homes in downtown Detroit for sale or rent? If you moved there you wouldn't be able to get a job

jan3024 3y ago
Well the reverse is also true.