sToP pOsTiNg pOliTicAl mEmEs!!!
skulkingaround @ skulkingaround @sh.itjust.works Posts 0Comments 130Joined 2 yr. ago
skulkingaround @ skulkingaround @sh.itjust.works
Posts
0
Comments
130
Joined
2 yr. ago
If there was a service I could pay like $100-200/mo for and just have every movie and TV show I'd happily pay for it. It doesn't exist, but pirate sites do and they do have every movie and TV show, including tons completely unavailable on any streaming service
GabeN got it right, piracy is a service issue. I haven't pirated a PC game in probably 12 years because steam works great and has basically every PC game I could ask for.
It's not that, it's purely supply. Landlords are a proxy for tenants, whether willing or unwilling, in the housing market when it comes to demand. They are no more interested in driving up housing prices than owner occupants are (which is to say, the vast majority of both are interested in driving up housing prices). The catch is, you can't drive up housing prices in a market where there isn't a supply constriction. Build more housing where people want to live, and you won't have to do anything else for the problem to fix itself.
If you want to have an actual debate about housing supply and demand, I'm always down for reasonable discussion.
Ultimately what matters is that enough supply is built to meet buyer demand, whether it be from owner occupants or landlords. Landlords can buy up or build as much housing as they want, but as long as there's still more available, the prices will stay reasonable and owner occupants will have no issues getting affordable housing. And buying up too much will crater the rental rates if there are significantly fewer potential tenants than available units. There are plenty of markets where this is the case, the city I am in is one of them. Someone on a $50k salary here would have no issues finding a modestly sized SFH in a reasonably nice working class neighborhood. Cheaper if you're willing to go for a condo or townhouse.
As a landlord and someone who loves shenanigans, it's been great. It's never been easier to piss off dozens of people I don't like at once.
Like, sure dude, my owning a few houses is totally the reason your city that I don't live in won't build new housing to meet demand, and I totally enjoy spending all of my weekends doing manual labor fixing shit for my tenants.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. To directly address some of your points, even if 10% of the population could afford to become landlords with 4 doors, the vast majority of them wouldn't. The market will also not allow this for reasons I'll go into below.
As for determining when there's enough housing supply, there's a lot of metrics you could go by. For example, average home sale price relative to median household income for the local area. Public polling to determine the number of people who are looking to buy or rent but are having issues doing so, etc. It's not a simple problem but there are assuredly some acceptable solutions.
Vacancy rates can also be misleading, especially compared to the number of homeless people. The overwhelming majority of people in the USA are not homeless. I don't remember the exact number, but the total homeless population is something like a fraction of a percent. Just normal housing vacancy due to turnover is a few percent of housing stock which on its own accounts for almost all of the those vacancies. It is extremely rare that residential property sits vacant for extended periods of time unless there are severe issues with it, or there is a significant market oversupply in the area.
As for profiting off rent, until land value tax exists, I agree, renting property out exhibits of a level of rent seeking in the academic sense of the word. There is still an inherent service provided in that the landlord assumes the risk of property ownership though, but yes, I agree that in a lot of cases, the value extracted simply from being the owner of the property is excessive. I'll get into this more below as well.
I think a major point of disagreement is that I believe that if we increase the supply, market forces can naturally balance for the demand of both renters and and owners. Assume you're looking at an area where supply and demand are well balanced and proper measures against anti-competitive practices are in place (and also no stupid taxation schemes that make it beneficial to have vacancies, looking at you NYC). First, you have the actual ownership market. All purchasers are competing against each other to purchase property at the lowest price possible. No rational actor is going to make offers far above the actual worth of the property given that supply is saturated. That includes both owner-occupants and landlords. For landlords, there are two main considerations for value, both cashflow and gains on the value of the property. In a balanced market, the average value of a home is absolutely not going to beat something like the stock market, so as an investment, it's not a great move beyond adding some portfolio diversification. Landlords also have to compete for the pool of potential tenants in a balanced market. If there is an oversupply of rentals, and an undersupply of tenants, home prices will go up since supply for buyers is not being met due to being carved out by LLs, and rent cashflow goes down due to tenant shortage. When this begins happening, it becomes very advantageous for LLs to sell as the prices have gone up and the rents have gone down. In theory, this mechanism should prevent things from getting out of hand to begin with. Where you see big issues is in markets where demand outstrips supply. LLs can buy out the supply from owner occupants, but instead of cratering rent, the undersupply allows them to turn around and charge obscene rates to the top percent who can afford them.
The main point I'm trying to make is that rentals existing is not the reason housing is expensive and difficult to obtain, it's a supply issue. Remove red tape, build more housing, so there's enough for all the people who want to own and the people who want to rent. Fix that, then see how it balances out with natural market forces, and then you create policy if things are still wacky.
As for profiting off rent, yes, the tenants in any of my rentals could afford a 30yr mortgage payment with the cost of their rent. However, when I start adding in costs like maintenance, property taxes, insurance, and my own time and sweat, most of my tenants are paying similar if not less out of their pocket every month than they would be if they owned the home they lived in, the only difference being that they aren't building equity. It's not like they don't get anything out of the deal either, they never have to worry about finding a plumber for a weekend emergency, or having to dig up $15k when the roof needs replacing, and most importantly, they can move somewhere else with zero risk of going underwater on a mortgage. Now, all that said, there are shitty landlords and property mgmt. companies out there and I would absolutely support reasonable legislation to get them to behave.
As for renting SFH, I disagree, although I am of course biased given that most of my portfolio is SFH. Just because someone doesn't want to be a homeowner doesn't mean they shouldn't have the opportunity to live in a detached house. I'm not strictly opposed to some limitations on SFH rentals, but I still think we need to fix the supply issue before looking at that further. That said, I do think multi unit housing is much more efficient, and if it were made a lot easier to build, a huge number of landlords would readily switch from SFH to that. Heck, I want to replace some of my SFH rentals with multi units (I think du/triplexes are a good balance without sticking out too much in an otherwise SFH neighborhood), but getting planning approval for it is such a byzantine nightmare that I've given up for the most part.
It might be better for that one individual who purchased for themselves, but the people who can afford to buy is a much smaller group than those who can afford to rent. A healthy housing market has a good mix of both, because even if everyone who wants to own does, there will still be plenty of people who want to rent too. Whether it's because they aren't planning on staying more than a few years, or simply because they don't want to have to deal with the tribulations of home ownership of which there are many.
If not landlords (and it often isn't), it would be owner occupants buying them at equally obscene prices. Contrary to what the media might lead you to believe, something like 80% of housing units are owner occupant.
It's also not as lucrative as most would think. I have a few rentals and it's certainly not enough to quit my day job in IT. It's maybe an extra $15-20k in my pocket at the end of the year after expenses and taxes and such, and I spend at least 10-20 hours a week doing accounting, maintenance tasks, coordinating contractors, legal stuff, etc. Sure, the equity is nice too, but it doesn't do a whole lot for me until retirement age.
As far as whether landlords can be "good", I see myself as providing a valuable service to those who cannot or don't want to become homeowners. In a perfect world, those who cannot but want to become homeowners should, but the cost of housing has little to do with rentals and almost everything to do with zoning, development restrictions, and tax structure. Until that world exists, someone has to offer rental properties to these people, otherwise where would they live?
While you are correct that the cybersec practices on voting machines are embarrassingly bad, we don't actually rely on them for the integrity of our elections in most districts. They are a convenience more than anything else, and at the first sign of any possible tampering, we can audit against paper ballots that get printed off the voting machines (which if you start altering those, it only takes one person to notice somethings off and the jig is up)
Even with their shit security, an attack would be exceedingly difficult to pull off. The machines are airgapped and audited, so you need physical access without supervision which by itself is a tall order. Then, consider that you will need to compromise dozens of machines at minimum to swing even the lowest turnout national election for the most obscure position. Finding enough people willing to risk a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison felony charge that are smart enough to do the job and not get caught is going to be a challenge too, because if one person gets caught, then once again, the jig is up.
What is far more realistically dangerous is convincing people that the election was compromised when it wasn't. This gets you way more bang for your buck because it's so much easier to do, and is the primary reason I think that nobody really bothers trying to compromise the voting machines.